Egypt Says ‘No’: Lessons from the Global Anti-Israel Protest That Never Was

This week, a group of mostly Western, self-described “anti-Israel activists” set out on a much-publicized mission: a global pro-Palestinian march meant to make headlines and, they believed, make a difference. Instead, their story fizzled almost instantly as Egyptian authorities, joined by unsympathetic locals, swiftly shut down the demonstration.

On Fox News’ “The Five,” the panel didn’t just report the story—they unpacked its ironies, motivations, and lessons for American protest culture. What does it mean when international activists are sent packing with little fanfare, and what does it expose about the culture wars around activism in the West?

The Global March That Never Was

The so-called “Global March to Gaza” brought together activists from over 80 countries. But the scene didn’t unfold as planned on Egyptian soil. Instead of dramatic newsreel images of crowds converging at the border, cameras caught quickly dispersed gatherings, and a notable absence of the chaos American audiences have come to expect.

Greg Gutfeld, introducing the segment with his signature dry wit, summed it up in five words: “Global march doesn’t end well,” poking fun both at the protesters’ failed objective and the media expectations for a “visual feast.”

The panel zeroed in on the irony that, while strict limits on public protest are often decried by Western liberals, some societies simply don’t play by the same “tolerance” rules as in the United States. In Egypt, authorities and local citizens alike proved they had little patience for outside agitators clogging streets or causing disruptions. As Greg noted, “They didn’t have the agitators, right? You don’t have a visual feast for the cameras… all that craziness that we have here that we tolerate in America.”

Virtue Signaling, Privilege, and Cultural Disconnect

Tyrus’s reaction was classic: “This is what’s wrong with virtue signaling and all these little groups… the would-be white saviors reacted with indignity when the uppity brown locals violently resisted their march.” The commentary, tongue-in-cheek and provocative, highlighted a recurring debate: Are Western protesters blinded by privilege, imagining themselves as global heroes, but tone-deaf to local realities?

Kat Timpf added that many “activists” seemed shocked by their reception. “It is alarming to me. I am actually surprised that they were this surprised that it turned out this way.” Her take: with smartphones in every hand, it’s “shameful neglect to Google”—meaning, perhaps, that if these activists truly wanted to help, they’d have researched local customs, laws, and actual needs, rather than parachuting in to make a statement.

The American vs. Egyptian Response to Protest

American protest culture is unique. The First Amendment protects even disruptive demonstrations, and urban authorities frequently adopt a mostly hands-off approach—sometimes cordoning off areas, often allowing significant disruption in the name of free expression. The result: highly publicized, sometimes chaotic, activism—occasional property damage, sit-ins, and, unmistakably, a heavy dose of “optics” for media consumption.

Not so in places like Egypt. There, authorities—and more importantly, ordinary people—refused to be part of a Western-style social justice spectacle. Protesters were not just cordoned but outright removed, passports taken, and flights arranged back home.

Tyrus’s blunt message: “We should take a page out of how they deal with their riots and virtue-signaling protest stuff… You’re not supposed to be here? We’re taking your passport and kicking your ass out.” The locals, he noted, weren’t interested in being “rescued”—they just wanted to go about their days without traffic jams or international drama.

Performative Solidarity or Genuine Sacrifice?

The conversation then turned toward the authenticity—or lack thereof—of many Western protests. Is joining a protest overseas truly about solidarity with the underprivileged, or is it more about wanting to “be a part of a happening,” as one panelist put it? The “activist tourist” critique is that many want the pictures, the stories for their friends, but not the risks or the real investment needed for long-term change.

Panelists made an analogy to migrant arrivals in Martha’s Vineyard, highlighting what they viewed as liberal hypocrisy: elite communities supporting causes from a distance, but quick to mobilize resources to maintain their comfort when those causes get too close.

Calls for Perspective—and Maybe a Little Humility

Maybe the harshest critique, as said on the show: “There is nothing worse than a guilt-ridden white person… they want to go on a trip and be part of a happening… but they don’t really want to sacrifice anything for real.” The accusation is not that all Western activism is hollow—but that too often, the drive is self-centered, seeking validation over genuine solutions.

The lesson? In some parts of the world, you can’t just “show up” and be presumed virtuous. Real listening, humility, and understanding—not grandstanding—are prerequisites for meaningful activism.

The Final Punchline

There’s a difference, panelists suggested, between “protesting” and “performing”—and the Egyptian response offered a wake-up call. In places with little tolerance for outside disruption or what they view as self-indulgent Western politics, virtue signaling is not just ineffective—it’s unwelcome.

The real story, as “The Five” concluded, isn’t that the march failed, but that Western activists learned an uncomfortable lesson: sometimes, not everyone wants outsiders to “save” them. Sometimes, the most radical act is to listen, learn, and approach change with humility—not a social media campaign.