Why Israeli-linked ships are fuelling controversy for Egypt

Global attention shifted to Egypt in late October when the MV Kathrin, a vessel reportedly carrying explosives bound for Israeli defence contractor Elbit Systems, docked in Alexandria after being denied entry by other Mediterranean ports.

Human rights advocates have condemned the ship’s reported cargo, raising concerns about its possible use amid mounting accusations of Israeli war crimes before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The incident, along with the subsequent passage of an Israeli warship through the Suez Canal five days later, has sparked protests and intensified scrutiny of Egypt's delicate position in the Gaza conflict.

The Suez Canal Authority defended its position for allowing the warship to pass, citing the 1888 Constantinople Convention, which further fuelled public outcry.

Egyptian activists gathered outside the Journalists' Syndicate headquarters in downtown Cairo to protest the incidents nearly two days after the vessel was seen navigating through Egypt’s northeastern Port Fuad via the canal. 

International law and ethical obligations

Saheeh Masr, an Egyptian media watchdog, reported that the MV Kathrin, tracked via MarineTraffic with registration number 9570620, had docked in Alexandria on 28 October. 

According to Reuters, this came after the ship was denied entry at four international ports in Slovenia, Malta, Namibia, and Angola, due to its reported cargo of RDX explosives. 

The ship, which had departed from Vietnam two months earlier, unloaded its cargo in Alexandria before setting sail to Haidar Pasha, Turkey.

Egyptian lawyer Ziad Al-Alimy told The New Arab that other Mediterranean countries refused to dock the MV Kathrin “partly due to legal concerns, especially in light of a ruling by the International Court of Justice indicating that Israel is committing crimes against humanity”. 

He added: “The other reason is an ethical stance; these nations do not want to be complicit in war crimes”.

Mohamed Mahran, an international law specialist and a fellow of the American and European Societies of International Law, agrees with Al-Alimy on ethical grounds but notes a legal distinction. 

“International law obliges all states to protect civilians during wartime,” he explained. “Although the United Nations has recommended halting arms exports to Israel, enforcement of this recommendation depends on political will and lacks legal penalties.”

Egypt’s military spokesperson on 31 October stated that “there is no form of cooperation with Israel”. On the same day, state-run Al-Qahera News aired a statement from a senior official denying that Alexandria Port had accepted “a German ship carrying military goods for Israel”.

However, Egyptian activists shared screenshots from the Alexandria Port Authority’s website confirming the presence of the MV Kathrin. 

The Ministry of Transport’s 31 October statement appeared contradictory, initially denying that the MV Kathrin had docked but later admitting that the ship, "Portuguese-registered and flying the German flag, was permitted to dock to unload a consignment for the Ministry of Military Production".

One day before this statement, Saheeh Masr reported that Portugal’s Foreign Minister stated that half of the ship’s cargo included explosives destined for an Israeli arms company.

“There is no strict legal provision in international law that compels a country to refuse a ship’s entry solely because it carries military supplies, as this falls under national sovereignty,” an international law researcher, who spoke to The New Arab on condition of anonymity due to the political sensitivity of the matter, said. 

“Complicity in alleged war crimes, however, applies to countries directly involved, like Germany or the US, due to their direct arms supply to the military conducting these atrocities.”

Israeli warship passing through Port Fuad 

A video showing an Israeli Sa’ar 5 warship, bearing both Israeli and Egyptian flags, navigating the Suez Canal on 2 November sparked further debate on social media.

The Suez Canal Authority defended the passage, citing the Constantinople Convention, which guarantees free navigation in the canal during both peacetime and war. 

“The Constantinople Convention, which was signed between the great powers in 1888, and came into effect in 1904, is binding to Egypt, as it states that the Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free and of commerce or of war,” the source added.

The Authority reiterated Egypt’s commitment to applying international agreements that ensure “unimpeded passage for both commercial and military vessels, regardless of nationality”.

Mahran argues, however, that the 136-year-old maritime agreement is “antiquated” and that “Egypt did not sign it”. 

“But Egypt’s position is understandable since this is an international trade matter, and if Egypt breaches the convention there could be serious international repercussions that the country would not be able to withstand,” Mahran told The New Arab.

Mahran argued that Egypt could restrict Israeli warships’ movement through the canal under the Constantinople Convention if such ships “posed a threat to security”.

"Egypt could potentially cite Houthi targeting as a risk, and under the Constantinople Convention, passage can be denied if a vessel threatens national security or navigation safety," he explained.

"Discreet diplomatic efforts may already be underway regarding the recent ship passage, and we’ll see what unfolds in the coming days." 

RT Arabic cited an Israeli report on 7 November, indicating that the Israeli warship was part of a US-led coalition mission in the Red Sea, joining other ships to secure Israel’s economic waters and strategic assets.

Egypt's alliances 

Al-Alimy interprets Egypt's recent stance as aligning with the region’s “Sunni bloc,” which includes the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and Israel, with support from the US.

"This bloc has emerged as a counterbalance to Iran, which leads a Shia alliance with several regional allies," he explained.

He also identified two main drivers behind Egypt’s alignment: economic investments from the Gulf, particularly from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and political backing from the US.

“Israel supplies much of Egypt’s natural gas, and the US pro-Israel lobby wields considerable influence in American politics, which bolsters the current Egyptian regime,” he added.

The ‘Shia Axis,’ sometimes called the ‘Axis of Resistance,’ is a coalition of nations and groups that oppose Israel and US influence in the Middle East. Led and supported by Iran, this alliance includes Syria, Yemen’s Houthi movement, Iran-aligned factions in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and, uniquely, the Sunni movement Hamas. 

In contrast, the ‘Sunni Bloc’ was first referenced by Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon in a 2015 BBC Arabic interview, in which he highlighted Israel’s strategic cooperation with Sunni bloc states, except Qatar, based on shared opposition to common adversaries such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Shia Axis.

Al-Alimy dismissed suggestions that the alignment is tied to the ongoing IMF review, asserting, “The motivations run deeper than any IMF pressure”.

Mahran disagreed, noting that “Israel is fully backed by the US, which wields its veto power to protect Israel from sanctions in direct violation of the UN Charter”. 

“Egypt cannot confront Israel alone due to the risk of sanctions,” he added. “Egypt finds itself in a delicate position as a mediator in this crisis, which requires taking a firm stance while also aiming for a resolution.”

Mahran also believes that the international community must unite to impose sanctions on Israel. 

“Economic and military sanctions, as well as restrictions on Israeli vessels, could mitigate the systemic failures in the global order. Until then, countries may need to enact independent sanctions,” he said, adding that the UN General Assembly has acknowledged Israel’s breaches of international law and “recommended Israel’s withdrawal from Palestinian territories”. 

“However, although the International Court of Justice issued precautionary orders for Israel to prevent genocide, enforcement has stalled due to the US’s vetoes,” he explained.

Al-Alimy echoed this concern, adding that while Israel may not face immediate consequences, shifting global attitudes could impact its long-term strategy. 

“Israel may not face immediate repercussions, but the world is shifting, and Israel knows it. This sense of urgency drives its swift pursuit of territorial goals, as today’s young anti-Israel protesters will be tomorrow’s decision-makers,” he argued.