عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Arab World

Egypt, Oman Explore Boosting Cooperation

Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry. (AFP file photo)
Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry. (AFP file photo)
TT
TT

Egypt, Oman Explore Boosting Cooperation

Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry. (AFP file photo)
Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry. (AFP file photo)

Egypt’s Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry kicked off on Saturday a two-day visit to the Omani capital, Muscat, leading an Egyptian delegation to the 15th session of the Egyptian-Omani joint committee.

Oman's Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi received Shoukry at Muscat International Airport.

At his arrival, Shoukry inaugurated the Arab Specialized Eye, Nose, Throat and Dental Hospital, which is a joint Omani-Egyptian investment project.

The ceremony was held under the patronage of Sheikh Sebaa bin Hamdan Al Saadi, Secretary-General of the Higher Committee for Celebrations, in the presence of a number of Omani and Egyptian officials.

Spokesman for the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, Ahmed Hafez, said Shoukry will sit down with a number of senior Omani officials to discuss the distinguished bilateral relations between their countries. Talks will also cover regional and international developments of interest.

On Saturday, Shoukry attended the opening of the third session of the Egyptian-Omani Joint Business Council at Al Bustan Palace. Present at the event were Albusaidi and Omani Minister of Commerce, Industry and Investment Promotion Qais Al Yousef.

The Egyptian Minister commended the active role played by the council to promote joint investments and explore cooperation opportunities. He also hailed the regular convention of the council since its establishment in 2019.

Shoukry encouraged Omani investors and private business owners to make the best use of the mega economic and developmental projects under way in Egypt, which offer a wide variety of investment opportunities, especially in light of the country's successful economic reforms to ensure a business-friendly environment.

Most Viewed

 
 
Arab World

Israel-Hamas Ceasefire Deal Compared to Swiss Cheese, Full of Gaps

Israelis block road in Jerusalem, demanding agreement implementation and hostage release (AFP)
Israelis block road in Jerusalem, demanding agreement implementation and hostage release (AFP)
TT
TT

Israel-Hamas Ceasefire Deal Compared to Swiss Cheese, Full of Gaps

Israelis block road in Jerusalem, demanding agreement implementation and hostage release (AFP)
Israelis block road in Jerusalem, demanding agreement implementation and hostage release (AFP)

The ceasefire and prisoner exchange deal reached between Israel and Hamas on Wednesday evening is facing a crisis that could prevent it from going forward before it gets Israeli approval or is put into effect.
The agreement is full of gaps, much like Swiss cheese. Despite outlining three phases aimed at bringing the war to a close, it is accompanied by Israeli military actions that continue to claim dozens of lives in Gaza.
Asharq Al-Awsat reviewed the deal’s terms and the different interpretations from both sides.
The first issue comes from the opening of the agreement’s appendix: Practical procedures and mechanisms to implement the agreement for the exchange of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners and the return to a sustainable calm which would achieve a permanent ceasefire between the two sides.
What does “sustainable calm” mean? In Israel, officials say it means Israel has the right to resume fighting after the first phase. Palestinians, however, claim US President-elect Donald Trump’s administration has promised the war won’t restart. Both sides interpret the term differently.
The goal of the agreement is clear: release all Israeli prisoners—alive or dead—captured by Palestinians. In return, Israel will release a “negotiated number” of Palestinian prisoners.
The exchange is set to begin on “Day One,” the day the ceasefire takes effect, but it's still unclear when that will be.
In the first phase (42 days), the agreement calls for “a temporary halt to military operations by both sides and the withdrawal of the Israeli army eastward” from “high-population areas along the Gaza border, including the Gaza Valley.”
Hamas claims the maps provided for this were incomplete.
Even though the agreement mentions “the return of displaced people to their homes and withdrawal from Gaza Valley,” people will have to walk several kilometers and vehicles will be inspected, which could lead to disagreements and clashes.
As for humanitarian aid, the agreement allows for its entry starting on “Day One” (600 trucks daily, including 50 fuel trucks, with 300 heading to northern Gaza).
This includes fuel for the power plant and equipment for debris removal, rehabilitation, and hospital operations.
But the agreement doesn’t clarify how the aid will be distributed or who will control it. Will Hamas continue to oversee it? Will Israel agree? If Hamas takes charge, what happens then? This could lead to further complications.
The criteria for the first phase of the prisoner exchange are clear, but the agreement states that “the prisoner exchange terms for the first phase will not apply to the second phase.”
Hamas wants more Palestinian prisoners released, but Israel rejects this. If disagreements have arisen over clear criteria in the first phase, what will happen when the criteria are more vague?
The agreement sets a deadline of “Day 16” for indirect talks to finalize the conditions for the second phase, particularly regarding the prisoner exchange.
One clause is seen by Israel as not requiring it to carry out the second phase, while Hamas views it as a guarantee to prevent the war from restarting. The clause states: “Qatar, the US, and Egypt will make every effort to ensure continued indirect negotiations until both sides agree on the terms for the second phase.”
However, the phrase “make every effort” does not create a binding legal obligation.
The agreement is full of gaps that could become major problems for both sides. While this doesn’t mean the deal should be dismissed, it shows that many parts of the agreement are fragile and depend on mutual trust and good intentions—both of which are lacking in this region.