The Soumoud—or Steadfastness—land convoy left Tunis on 9 June 2025 as a grassroots North African initiative seeking to challenge the siege of Gaza, intensified during the war that began in October 2023. Organisers put its size at around 20 buses and 350 cars carrying 1,500–2,000 activists, principally from Tunisia and Algeria, with participants from Morocco and Mauritania joining later.
Libyan activists joined along the route, as did dozens of doctors carrying medical equipment and an ambulance in case they were allowed into Gaza.
The convoy received a warm public welcome at successive stops. After a send-off in Tunis, it crossed into Libya through Ras Jedir on 10 June. Residents in Zawiya and Tripoli greeted participants with Palestinian flags.
By 12 June, the convoy was reported near Misrata in western Libya, intending to continue through Sirte and Benghazi to Egypt’s Salloum border crossing. Organisers hoped to reach Arish and Rafah on Sunday, 15 June, and stage a peaceful sit-in demanding the opening of the crossing and the admission of aid into Gaza. These were plans; permission to cross Egypt had not been secured.
A separate international mobilisation, the Global March to Gaza, was bringing participants from numerous countries to Cairo by air. Together, the initiatives reflected the growing international movement against the war, then in its second year with no clear political path to ending it.
Egyptian supporters also called for a solidarity gathering on the steps of the Journalists’ Syndicate in Cairo on the evening of 12 June under the slogan: “Steadfastness convoys: open the road to Rafah.” Images and videos posted by participants travelling through Libya circulated widely on social media.
The land convoy and international march followed other civilian attempts to challenge the siege, including the Madleen’s sea voyage.
The Madleen sailed from Catania, Sicily, on 1 June. Israeli forces intercepted it in international waters on 9 June and took the vessel and its 12 passengers to Ashdod. Four accepted deportation and were removed on 10 June; the remaining eight were still detained at that stage after refusing the deportation terms.
Egypt insists on advance coordination
The Soumoud convoy’s intended route raised early questions about Cairo’s response, particularly given security restrictions in North Sinai. On 11 June, Egypt’s Foreign Ministry welcomed international support for Palestinian rights but said foreign delegations needed prior permission to visit the border area.
Applications for Arish and Rafah had to go through Egyptian embassies abroad, foreign embassies in Cairo or organisations coordinating directly with the ministry. The statement cited visitor safety and national security, required valid entry documents and said requests outside the designated procedures would not be considered. It noted that official and rights delegations had previously visited under those arrangements.
Egyptian security sources said the convoy had not yet obtained permission to enter through Salloum and coordination with Cairo remained incomplete. Entry therefore remained uncertain.
One security source said agencies were on alert near the Libyan frontier to prevent crossings without legal documentation. Egypt did not reject the convoy in principle, the source said, but wanted full information on people travelling roughly 1,000 kilometres across Egyptian territory to Rafah.
The same source suggested participants with valid visas could be admitted without confrontation, and did not rule out Egyptian activists or parties joining at Rafah. But any gathering near the crossing would have to remain under security control, the source added, to prevent disorder that Israel might exploit.
Sources described discussions in Cairo that initially favoured refusal before considering limited admission under conditions, including valid visas and reduced numbers. Their account points to the political dilemma: outright rejection could strengthen accusations that Egypt helps sustain Gaza’s siege, while admitting thousands without a tightly managed plan was viewed by officials as a security risk.
Organisers say they used the official channels
Convoy organisers countered that they had contacted Egyptian authorities weeks earlier through Egypt’s embassy in Tunis and intermediaries in Cairo. They said a formal letter to the Foreign Ministry set out the initiative’s peaceful, humanitarian purpose.
Spokesperson Wael Nawar said an application in the name of the Soumoud convoy was submitted to the Egyptian embassy in Tunis on 19 May 2025, several weeks before departure.
According to Nawar, a delegation led by activist Ghassan Henchiri subsequently met the Egyptian ambassador at the embassy. A Tunisian intermediary with connections to the Egyptian authorities attended. Nawar declined to name the intermediary for safety reasons but said organisers were ready to ask that person to corroborate the meeting if required.
Organisers say they followed the procedures Egypt required. The authorities’ statement, meanwhile, made prior approval—not simply the submission of an application—the condition for a border visit.
Nawar maintained that attempts to question the convoy’s compliance could not justify the treatment participants described. The dispute concerned both whether requests had been properly received and what response organisers were entitled to expect.
Detentions and deportations
As the land convoy advanced through Libya, Egyptian authorities detained or turned back foreign participants arriving by air for the Global March to Gaza. Organisers described arrivals from around 80 countries in the days preceding the planned march.
Reuters reported 73 deportations to Istanbul on Thursday, 12 June. Organisers also described people held at Cairo airport awaiting removal, and said more than 200 participants had been detained or affected by the campaign. Their accounts included American, Australian, French, Spanish, Dutch, Moroccan and Algerian nationals.
In a statement issued late on 11 June, organisers said they had spent two months communicating with Egypt’s Foreign Ministry and Egyptian embassies in more than 15 countries. They maintained that participants had met the requirements and called for the immediate release of everyone held.
Zawia3’s sources reported further removals, including eight people holding both European and North African nationalities who, they said, had valid visas but received no written explanation.
Sources also described the removal of 140 Algerian participants, including three lawyers known for rights work, more than ten Moroccans returned on arriving flights, and Turkish nationals. These were reported group counts and should not be added to other totals without checking for overlap.
Some French nationals were released after brief detention, while a Tunisian women’s delegation remained at the airport facing deportation, according to the accounts received by Zawia3.
In a 12 June statement, the Foundation for the Support of Law and Democracy alleged serious violations against peaceful march participants. It said members of the Dutch delegation were held at the airport, had passports confiscated and were denied water, food and medical care before being removed despite holding valid visas.
The statement said participants had received no legal explanation and had avoided unlicensed activities. It called on Egypt to end the detentions and deportations and facilitate humanitarian aid, arguing that preventing the convoys helped reinforce Israel’s unlawful blockade of more than two million people.
Rights lawyer Yasser Saad tells Zawia3 that the gap between the government’s stated procedures and participants’ accounts raises serious questions. He says Soumoud’s steering committee had submitted applications through the specified channels and criticises the absence of clear legal grounds communicated to people detained or removed.
Saad argues that the peaceful humanitarian purpose of the initiative undermines claims that participants inherently threatened national security. His criticism concerns the legality and transparency of the treatment of individual participants.
The legal distinction matters: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not create an unrestricted right for a foreign national to enter another country. It does provide safeguards against arbitrary detention and procedural protections concerning the expulsion of foreigners lawfully present. The UN Human Rights Committee’s interpretation therefore requires attention to each person’s legal position and the procedures used, rather than treating every refusal of entry as automatically unlawful.
Who carried out the operation?
Participants’ accounts identified police, airport security and passport officers as carrying out detentions. Plainclothes officers visited hotels, questioned activists, searched belongings and, in some cases, took phones. Sources believed some officers belonged to National Security, but the agency’s precise role was not officially confirmed.
The reported use of lists of names suggested coordination across locations. Neither the Interior Ministry nor security agencies issued a detailed public account of the operation as it unfolded. AFP reported that Cairo’s security director had not responded to its request for comment.
A rights lawyer speaking to Zawia3 interpreted the absence of clarification as a sign of the issue’s sensitivity and suggested that authorities may have relied on high-level instructions not made public. That remains the lawyer’s assessment, not an established account of the command structure.
Sources said doctors and volunteers arriving from Sweden and Denmark were among those immediately returned on flights without entering Egypt. By contrast, organisers said some Tunisians who arrived individually had been admitted after lengthy questioning. Their personal details were recorded, and they were waiting in Cairo to join others if the land convoy received permission to enter.
One organiser suggested authorities distinguished between individual arrivals on tourist visas, some of whom were eventually admitted, and organised group arrivals treated as unwelcome delegations. This was the organiser’s interpretation of the differing treatment.
Egypt’s position was that the Palestinian side of Rafah was closed because of conditions on the ground, and that a foreign gathering on the Egyptian side could not reopen it without Israeli agreement. Officials argued that international pressure should instead focus on Israel to allow aid through Gaza’s side of the crossing.
Solidarity—and suspicion
The North African convoy drew support from Tunisian civil and professional organisations, including the Tunisian General Labour Union, the doctors’ order, Tunisian Scouts and the National Syndicate of Tunisian Journalists. An Algerian initiative supporting Palestine and relief for Gaza, linked to the Association of Algerian Muslim Scholars, also joined.
Organisers had required registration forms, passports valid for at least six months, medical certificates and travel insurance covering at least a month from 9 June.
Egyptian social media responses were divided. Many activists and rights advocates supported the initiative and wanted to participate. Others portrayed it as a threat to national security or an attempt to push Egypt into a political and military confrontation. Media figures and MPs close to the authorities voiced suspicions about its motives.
Presenter Ahmed Moussa claimed that many participants lacked official entry visas and warned of a trap intended to embarrass Egypt whether it admitted or refused them. Those allegations conflicted with organisers’ insistence that participants had complied with entry requirements.
MP Mohamed Abdel Aziz argued that any disorder in Egyptian Rafah could facilitate the displacement of Palestinians—a policy Egypt opposed—even if an event’s declared aim was to break the siege.
Presenter and MP Mostafa Bakry rejected criticism of Egypt’s position, saying it opposed the siege and displacement. He framed the situation as a dilemma manufactured to discredit Cairo: resisting displacement would expose it to accusations of harming Palestinians, while allowing entry would prompt accusations of helping liquidate the Palestinian cause.
Support in central Cairo
Egyptian supporters called for the evening gathering at the Journalists’ Syndicate to affirm humanitarian solidarity and oppose restrictions on the international participants.
Karima El Hefnawy, one of those organising and joining the gathering, tells Zawia3 it continues earlier protests against genocide and the siege. Participants had demonstrated before Eid al-Adha, demanding an end to the war and the admission of aid, and had already planned a second gathering for the Thursday after the holiday.
She says the international convoys happened to coincide with those plans. Participants contacted by Egyptian supporters said they had submitted formal requests well in advance. Some had received visas in Europe and flown to Cairo, while the land convoy had contacted Egypt’s embassy in Tunis, the Foreign Ministry and the Red Crescent without receiving an official response, according to El Hefnawy.
She describes the eventual official response as late and effectively shutting the door to the convoy. She says Egyptian national political forces continue to support civilian humanitarian initiatives.
“We salute the people of the world who come out of humanitarian motives to support the besieged people of Gaza,” El Hefnawy says. “It is our duty to raise our voices against this injustice.”
The Civil Democratic Movement had not announced a separate mobilisation but welcomed efforts by people around the world to break the siege.
Its spokesperson, Walid El Omari, tells Zawia3 that receiving the delegations and allowing them to reach Rafah presents a security challenge, but Egypt has sufficient experience to organise their movement.
He calls lifting the siege a humanitarian priority deserving action by governments and citizens alike. While concerned about Israel’s response, he sees the convoys as an opportunity to rebut claims that Egypt itself is preventing aid from entering.
El Omari argues that allowing the delegations to reach the crossing would demonstrate Egypt’s support for Palestinian rights and its capacity to act responsibly despite the difficulties.
The Socialist Popular Alliance Party likewise called on the government to admit the convoy, warning that preventing it on weak pretexts would be a serious mistake damaging Egypt’s standing among Arabs and internationally.
The argument takes place against a wider dispute over responsibility for Rafah. Israeli representatives had previously told the International Court of Justice that Egypt controlled access, a claim rejected by State Information Service chief Diaa Rashwan, who said Egypt had not obstructed aid.
The Arabic report also records a letter dated 3 June from twenty members of the European Parliament asking President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to allow participants to reach Gaza through Egypt. With the planned march approaching, the question remained whether that international pressure and the organisers’ prior applications would translate into permission to proceed.
