عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Arab World

Egypt, Jordan Boost Cooperation to Deepen Strategic Ties

Part of the Egyptian-Jordanian consultation session in Cairo on Tuesday, July 26, 2022. (Egyptian Foreign Ministry)
Part of the Egyptian-Jordanian consultation session in Cairo on Tuesday, July 26, 2022. (Egyptian Foreign Ministry)
TT
TT

Egypt, Jordan Boost Cooperation to Deepen Strategic Ties

Part of the Egyptian-Jordanian consultation session in Cairo on Tuesday, July 26, 2022. (Egyptian Foreign Ministry)
Part of the Egyptian-Jordanian consultation session in Cairo on Tuesday, July 26, 2022. (Egyptian Foreign Ministry)

Egypt and Jordan held an expanded consultation session in Cairo on Tuesday, co-chaired by Egypt’s Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry and his Jordanian counterpart Ayman Safadi.

Both sides agreed during the meeting to bolster cooperation in the field of development.

Discussions tackled various issues of common interest at the economic and investment levels, in light of the aggravating international and regional challenges impacting regional security and stability.

They also touched on ways to promote future relations and bolster trade exchange and transportation, in line with the directives of the two countries’ leaderships to advance various frameworks and mechanisms of bilateral cooperation in all fields.

From the Egyptian side, the session was attended by Finance Minister Mohamed Maait, Transport Minister Kamel al-Wazir, Minister of Trade and Industry Nevine Gamea. On the Jordanian side, Finance Minister Mohamad al-Ississ, Trade and Supply Minister Yousef al-Shamali, in addition to senior officials from both countries.

According to an Egyptian Foreign Ministry statement, both sides agreed to remove restrictions that limit the flow of trade between the two countries.

They further decided to form a joint working group from the relevant ministries to facilitate procedures and address any future challenges, as well as identify two points of contact for this goal in the embassies of the two countries.

The ministers also tackled Egyptian-Jordanian bilateral projects in many sectors to follow up their implementation process and maximize their common interests.

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.