The peace summit held in Egypt’s Sharm El-Sheikh, co-chaired by Egypt and the United States with the participation of regional and international leaders on October 13, witnessed the signing of a ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip by Egypt, the United States, Qatar, and Turkey. The agreement is part of U.S. President Donald Trump’s peace plan, which consists of 20 points and aims to end the war that erupted in October 2023. However, many questions remain about the future of peace in Gaza and the fate of the two-state solution, as observers see ambiguity surrounding the post-agreement phase.
During the summit—which brought together leaders from more than 20 Arab and Western countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan, the European Union, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and the Palestinian Authority represented by President Mahmoud Abbas, while Israel and the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) were absent—U.S. President Donald Trump declared the end of the war in Gaza. He pledged that the ceasefire would hold, describing it as a “stunning victory for Israel and the world.” Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi considered the agreement the start of a new era of peace and stability in the Middle East and the end of a painful chapter in human history. He described it as a “historic moment,” announcing that Egypt would host a future summit for Gaza reconstruction and continue coordinating with all parties to ensure the agreement’s implementation.
Hours before the summit, during his visit to Tel Aviv, former U.S. President Donald Trump delivered a speech before the Israeli Knesset, calling for a focus on achieving peace in the region and reaffirming his support for Tel Aviv as “Washington’s closest ally in the Middle East.” During his remarks, Trump urged the granting of a special pardon to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his ongoing legal and criminal cases, arguing that “Israel needs a strong leader unburdened by prosecutions,” in a clear indication of his political support for Netanyahu ahead of potential internal settlements or upcoming elections.
On October 8, mediation efforts succeeded in reaching an agreement between Tel Aviv and Hamas on the first phase of the peace plan, following indirect negotiations hosted in Sharm El-Sheikh and mediated by the United States, Egypt, and Qatar. The ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip came into effect on October 10, marking the first practical step toward consolidating the truce and setting the stage for subsequent phases of the plan.
The first phase included an immediate halt to Israeli military operations in Gaza and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from urban areas to an agreed-upon line—known as the “yellow line”—within 24 hours of Israeli approval. Under the deal, Israel retains control over about 53% of the Gaza Strip, while 20 Israeli hostages are to be released alive within 72 hours, in addition to the return of the bodies of 24 others (some of which may be delayed due to destruction). In exchange, Tel Aviv will release 250 Palestinians sentenced to life imprisonment, 1,700 detainees from Gaza who were arrested after October 7, 2023, as well as all detained Palestinian women and children.
For its part, the Palestinian resistance factions released all living hostages and returned some bodies, while Tel Aviv threatened to resume fighting if Hamas failed to comply fully with the terms. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz ordered the occupation army to prepare a “comprehensive plan to crush Hamas.” However, the U.S. President stated that some of the remaining hostages were still being searched for under the rubble caused by bombardment, stressing that the delay did not constitute a complete breach of the agreement. Although the phase also included increasing the flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza, including reopening the Rafah crossing in both directions, Tel Aviv announced that it would not reopen the crossing until all bodies were returned—raising concerns about possible violations of the agreement.
Don’t miss: Sharm El-Sheikh Peace Summit: How Egypt and the U.S. Are Redrawing the Future of Gaza
Which Clause Did Israel Activate—and Why?
In a related development, Al Jazeera’s bureau chief in Palestine, Walid Al-Omari, revealed that the Israeli government recently activated a secret clause in its decision concerning the Gaza agreement, allowing the army to open fire whenever it deems there is a threat or a violation by the Palestinian resistance. He explained that this clause appears in Annex (B) of the government resolution issued last Thursday, which pertains to the “return of living and deceased captives within 72 hours.” According to Al-Omari, its activation coincided with Israeli gunfire targeting Palestinians east of Gaza and movements by the families of slain captives—an indication that Israel has begun implementing what is known as the “hot unit” protocol, which grants the army the freedom to act immediately under the pretext of an imminent threat.
Al-Omari added that this measure is not part of the official ceasefire agreement but rather stems from an internal government decision that could entrench a field reality similar to the situation in Lebanon, whereby Israel would be able to carry out attacks whenever it chooses. He noted that the second phase of the agreement—focused on consolidating the ceasefire, completing the prisoner exchange, and facilitating the entry of humanitarian aid—has not yet begun. Meanwhile, statements by Israeli officials reveal Tel Aviv’s apparent intention to obstruct the implementation of the agreement by threatening to suspend aid deliveries and close the Rafah crossing on the pretext that not all bodies have been handed over.
What Comes After the Sharm El-Sheikh Summit?
The peace summit held in Sharm El-Sheikh represents “an important step toward ending the conflict in the Gaza Strip, as it resulted in the signing of Trump’s Declaration for Lasting Peace and Prosperity,” which included a 20-point peace plan encompassing a ceasefire, a hostage exchange (20 Israeli captives in return for more than 2,000 Palestinian prisoners), an increase in humanitarian aid to Gaza, a pledge to rebuild the Strip with a value exceeding 50 billion dollars, and the formation of an international force to maintain stability. According to Dr. Mohamed El-Ezaby, an international relations expert, the agreement is “moving in the right direction,” and he expects a complete cessation of hostilities and no return to fighting by Israel, despite lingering concerns about the ambiguity of certain clauses.
El-Ezaby told Zawia3 that Egypt played a pivotal mediating role since the beginning of the conflict. President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi welcomed the agreement and described it as “the last chance for peace in the region,” emphasizing the importance of ending Palestinian suffering and reopening the Rafah crossing for aid delivery. Cairo also contributed significantly to reaching the agreement and called for the formation of a technocratic Palestinian government backed by the international community, within the framework of a prior understanding with Palestinian factions to establish a “Support Committee” to administer Gaza after the war. He stressed that Gaza remains a Palestinian responsibility requiring international support—a balance between humanitarian considerations and national security imperatives.
“The twenty points leave little room for interpretation,” El-Ezaby told us. “While some parties may see ambiguity, the clarity of the document and the large number of global leaders who signed it demonstrate a serious intent to implement it and ensure its continuity. The limited ambiguity allows each side to declare its own ‘victory’ without direct confrontation, but it does not obscure the overall direction toward lasting peace.”
The expert added that Trump’s speech before the Israeli Knesset, in which he declared the war in Gaza over and rejected any resumption of fighting, constitutes a strong political guarantee for the continuation of the truce. He also noted that an Egyptian-Turkish-Qatari committee has been formed to locate the bodies of Israeli captives and hand them over to Israel in exchange for the release of the remaining Palestinian hostages in Israeli prisons. Furthermore, Egypt’s call for a Gaza reconstruction conference—requesting that it be held under U.S. sponsorship—demonstrates a genuine intention to continue implementing the agreement.
El-Ezaby pointed out that confidence in Israel’s commitment to the agreement remains relatively limited, but greater trust lies in U.S. pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, particularly after Netanyahu requested political immunity and a pardon from Israel’s president. He added that certain limited violations, such as minor incursions beyond the “yellow line,” do not constitute a fundamental breach but rather attempts by Israel to assert presence without collapsing the truce, similar to what happened during the January 2025 ceasefire.
El-Ezaby outlined two possible scenarios for Gaza’s future. The first envisions successful reconstruction supported by international funding, the establishment of a technocratic government, and an increase in aid deliveries to 600 trucks per day—leading to economic stability and the creation of a special economic zone under international security oversight. The second scenario anticipates a truce with limited violations and continued Israeli control over 15% of the borders, which would complicate the disarmament of Hamas and delay reconstruction due to funding shortages. El-Ezaby completely ruled out the possibility of the agreement collapsing, stressing that “it is absolutely off the table.”
He added, “The U.S. president seeks to present himself as a man of peace, attempting to improve his international image after his previous military support for Israel. His declaration of the war’s end just one day after funding Israel’s military effort reflects his well-known ‘America First’ policy—combining security support for Israel with the desire to end conflicts for economic and political reasons. The pressure Trump exerted on Netanyahu to accept the deal represents a major diplomatic success for him.”
El-Ezaby also confirmed that there remains a strong opportunity to pursue the occupation in international courts, noting that United Nations reports issued in September 2025 accused Israel of committing acts of genocide. The independent UN Commission of Inquiry found these acts consistent with the Genocide Convention. However, the cases are still pending before the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, as Israel refuses to cooperate and continues to receive U.S. backing. El-Ezaby predicted that mounting international pressure may eventually lead to real prosecutions, but noted that a change in Israel’s leadership—alongside Trump’s support for Yair Lapid as a potential successor to Netanyahu and his effort to secure a safe political exit for the latter—remains a likely outcome.
A New Future for the Region
Ambassador Dr. Mohamed Higazy, former Assistant Foreign Minister, considers the Sharm El-Sheikh Summit one of the most significant historical milestones the region has witnessed in decades, as it lays the foundation for a new regional future, contributes to establishing the pillars of peace, security, and stability, and paves the way for a regional vision based on cooperation and shared security—where the peoples of the region can coexist in safety and peace, compensating for years of wars and striving for collective prosperity.
He told Zawia3: “The summit marks the beginning of a solution based on the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on all its national territories occupied in 1967, including the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem as its capital. This important international gathering—attended by twenty heads of state and government, and by the U.S. president—witnessed the adoption of a comprehensive peace plan that requires full commitment from all concerned parties, both those involved in the negotiation process and diplomatic support, as well as the two sides of the conflict, Hamas and Israel. This constitutes the first technical phase of withdrawals, prisoner and hostage exchanges.”
The ambassador explained that the next phase will witness the empowerment of the “Community Support Unit” to assume its responsibilities in the Gaza Strip, in political and legal association with the Palestinian National Authority. In parallel, Palestinian police officers trained in Egypt and Jordan will be authorized to take charge of internal security in the Strip. Cairo will also call for a conference of Palestinian factions to reach an agreement on the future governance of Gaza and the West Bank, and to explore mechanisms for unifying the Palestinian position—making national unity a form of leverage for establishing a single Palestinian state with one government and one legitimate security force. He noted that the following phase will focus on Gaza’s reconstruction, considered one of the most vital factors in helping Palestinians remain on their land and ensuring their security, stability, and safety, through extensive international partnerships and cooperation with states involved in this process.
Negotiations for the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire agreement began on October 14. They include discussions on Gaza’s security and administration, the consolidation of the ceasefire, the prevention of renewed warfare, the issues of Israeli withdrawal, Hamas’ weapons, the fate and potential exile of Hamas leaders, post-war governance, and reconstruction. The talks also presented a proposal to establish an international body named the “Peace Council,” which would play a role in administering Gaza after the war under the chairmanship of U.S. President Donald Trump. Meanwhile, six Palestinian civilians were killed and others wounded in an Israeli airstrike on Gaza City and Khan Younis on Monday, despite the ongoing ceasefire in the Strip.
Higazy stressed that the current situation demands greater awareness, wisdom, and responsibility in dealing with the challenges and dangers facing the region, particularly given emerging complications such as delays in the handover of hostage remains, difficulties in delivering humanitarian aid, and the escalation of sporadic violent incidents. He affirmed that these developments require prudent engagement from mediators and international parties that participated in the summit, so that the Sharm El-Sheikh Summit becomes a genuine launch point toward a new phase establishing a more secure, stable, and peaceful Middle East.
Dr. Jihad Al-Harazin, professor of political science at Al-Quds University, agreed with Higazy, describing the summit as a success in reaching a ceasefire agreement and in imposing a set of conditions on both sides regarding implementation mechanisms. He said the broad international participation constituted a fundamental guarantee for the continued execution of Trump’s ceasefire and reconstruction plan, as stipulated in the agreement. He considered the summit to have achieved its intended goals and proven Egypt’s ability to mobilize and build international consensus on the Palestinian issue. Egypt’s role, he added, went beyond enforcing the ceasefire—it aimed to make the summit the beginning of a comprehensive peace process to end the region’s ongoing conflicts and wars.
He told Zawia3: “The Egyptian leadership adopted a broader vision than mere de-escalation. It sought to revive the Palestinian cause internationally and to affirm that occupation is the root of the crisis, and that peace will only be achieved by ending it and restoring hope and life to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Egypt’s stance in this regard is rooted in a long history of mediation. Cairo has continuously worked to bring together the warring parties—from the occupation authorities to Hamas—to reach a comprehensive ceasefire and save what could still be saved of Palestinian civilians amid the genocide committed by the occupation against the Palestinian people.”
Al-Harazin noted that the clauses of Trump’s peace plan remain vague and general, requiring detailed negotiations to determine mechanisms for phased withdrawal, disarmament, reconstruction, and the political process. He stressed that while Egypt succeeded in implementing the first phase of this plan, it faces a greater challenge in the coming stages, since “the devil is in the details,” as he put it. This will require substantial diplomatic effort in the coming days to ensure the continuity of the truce and prevent the resumption of hostilities.
The Palestinian academic and political analyst added that the participation of the Palestinian president in the summit was a significant step that enabled Cairo to reopen channels of communication with the U.S. administration and to melt what he described as the “iceberg” in Palestinian-American relations. He argued that Israel’s compliance with the agreement’s provisions will remain dependent on continued American pressure and guarantees. He added that Trump’s “inflated ego” drives him to present himself as the only man capable of ending wars and achieving breakthroughs, offering each party what it wants to hear in order to preserve his image as a dominant leader on the global stage.
At a time when the Palestinian people hope to see the truce consolidated and the reconstruction process launched through an international conference—alongside the reunification of the Palestinian political system under one authority, one law, and a unified legitimacy, as Cairo and regional and international actors strive for—Al-Harazin does not rule out the possibility that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may attempt to obstruct implementation through political maneuvering. He called on Hamas, in contrast, to adhere fully to the terms of the agreement to deny Tel Aviv any pretext for disruption.
In conclusion, Al-Harazin emphasized that pursuing the occupation before international courts is a legally settled matter, stating: “The crimes committed by the Israeli occupation—whether war crimes, genocide, or crimes against humanity—do not lapse with time. The International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court are already examining cases against Israeli leaders, which means that legal accountability cannot be evaded. Acquitting Israel of its crimes is legally and morally impossible.”
The Road to Peace Is Not Without Obstacles
Dr. Dina Mohsen, professor of political communication and director of the Arab Center for Studies, praises the Sharm El-Sheikh Summit, describing it as an exceptional historical event “crafted with distinction in Cairo,” with the participation of other Arab parties and the efforts of France and Spain to reactivate the Palestinian issue in international forums. Yet, despite the summit’s positive atmosphere, she points to lingering concerns and apprehensions. The agreement signed in Sharm El-Sheikh, she explains, is only a preliminary deal marking the first stage, while subsequent phases still await implementation—and the road ahead is far from smooth. Some limited breaches of the agreement have already occurred by specific parties.
She told Zawia3: “The Palestinian cause has always been an integral Egyptian responsibility that the state has managed with a sense of historical duty since the Nakba, but handling this file is not Egypt’s responsibility alone. Anyone who believes that Cairo bears the full burden single-handedly is mistaken. Its full containment requires broad Arab and international engagement. Some actors have failed to grasp the magnitude and complexity of this issue, leading to their inability to contain it, whereas Egypt succeeded in maintaining the balance of the process despite the challenges. There remain gaps and protrusions that Egypt continues to address with all the wisdom, diplomatic, and security tools at its disposal.”
The director of the Arab Center for Studies emphasizes that the second and third phases of the agreement are the most complex, sensitive, and contentious. She notes that Egypt’s political leadership and its diplomatic and intelligence apparatus “do not rest” in their efforts to seal any potential loopholes. Among the most contentious issues, she says, is the disarmament of Palestinian resistance groups—particularly Hamas—which has long been a deeply troubling dilemma that Cairo has sought to build consensus around for years, not only in the current phase.
Professor Mohsen stresses that conflating all Palestinian resistance factions into one group is a major mistake, asserting that achieving a unified vision among the armed factions regarding the future of resistance weapons has been a central Egyptian objective for a long time. She adds: “U.S. President Donald Trump continues to emphasize disarmament in his statements, and several international and UN actors adopt the same position, which makes the coming stages increasingly complex and delicate.”
She further points out that the Arab League categorically rejects any Turkish presence in the region, even as President Trump himself invited Ankara to engage in this file. Meanwhile, some Arab states are considering sending military forces to the Gaza Strip—including Gulf countries that have expressed readiness for on-the-ground participation—a move that further complicates the scene and places an additional burden on Arab diplomatic efforts.
The expert believes that Trump is attempting to polish his image before global public opinion and present himself as a “man of peace,” while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to conceal a past laden with crimes against humanity. She affirms that “the idea of peace does not stem from humanitarian motives but has been imposed upon both leaders after the occupation lost control over the course of the war.” Netanyahu, she adds, now seeks to save himself by manipulating global awareness at a time when the world is experiencing a moral awakening against atrocities. She asks pointedly: “If Netanyahu truly wants peace in Gaza, why does he not seek it in Lebanon, or with Iran, or in Syria?” She explains that what is currently being proposed is not a comprehensive peace, but rather a partial settlement masking the continuation of military operations against civilians on multiple fronts. Nonetheless, she calls for seizing this historic moment to stop what she described as “humanitarian farces.”
Dina Mohsen considers the Sharm El-Sheikh Summit not as the end of the road but as the beginning of a new path toward a historic settlement. She clarifies that Egypt will continue to play its central role in safeguarding the Palestinian cause, prioritizing reason and wisdom over emotional escalation or political grandstanding, in pursuit of a just and comprehensive peace that preserves the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people. She affirms that “Egypt continues, with all its strength and diplomatic and intelligence effort, to close any gaps that could threaten the course of the political settlement,” stressing that Cairo still firmly holds the reins of initiative in this sensitive file.
The ceasefire agreement comes amid mounting international pressure to end the war that has raged since October 7, 2023, when Hamas-affiliated resistance factions launched a large-scale attack that killed more than 1,200 people and resulted in the capture of 251 others. In response, the occupation authorities declared a state of war and imposed a full blockade on the Strip, displacing nearly 2.1 million people—about 95% of Gaza’s population—while famine spread amid a total lack of water, food, and medicine, and diseases proliferated.
According to estimates by the Gaza Ministry of Health and UN agencies, the number of casualties in the Strip exceeded 67,000, including around 20,000 children, while the number of wounded ranged between 168,000 and 170,000, many of whom sustained permanent disabilities—equivalent to nearly 10% of Gaza’s pre-war population. In contrast, about 1,665 Israelis were killed, including more than 460 soldiers, and roughly 3,000 others were injured.
The war also destroyed or damaged about 78% of Gaza’s buildings—an estimated 193,000 out of 250,000 structures—including 436,000 housing units, leaving behind more than 61 million tons of rubble. The bombardment targeted 213 medical facilities and 1,029 schools, leaving only 14 hospitals partially functional and operating at over 240% of their intended capacity. Around 90% of schools and 79% of universities were destroyed. Meanwhile, the agricultural sector lost over 95% of its output, with severe contamination of soil and water caused by munitions. The bombardment also inflicted extensive damage on Gaza’s cultural heritage, destroying historic mosques, Ottoman-era markets, and archaeological sites.
Ambiguity in the Agreement Opens the Door to Divergent Interpretations
Ambassador Ali El-Hefny, former Assistant Foreign Minister and Secretary-General of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs, believes that the international climate surrounding the Sharm El-Sheikh Summit emerged as a result of global public pressure and the growing voices calling for an end to violence and the protection of civilians. This, he argues, created an international opportunity to halt hostilities and launch a path aimed at ending the suffering in Gaza. Cairo, therefore, sought to leverage the summit politically and diplomatically to capitalize on international consensus and pressure on the concerned parties. By inviting world leaders to convene, Egypt aimed to accelerate the ceasefire, open humanitarian corridors, and save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Gazans facing the early signs of famine and malnutrition. At the same time, several Western states attempted to restore their image before global opinion—countries such as Spain, Norway, and France pushed for a political solution, while others were constrained by domestic pressures that forced them to balance public sentiment with strategic interests.
Regarding the provisions of the ceasefire agreement, he told Zawia3: “Some clauses were clearly formulated, addressing the cessation of military operations, prisoner exchanges, and the opening of crossings. Yet other articles contained a degree of ambiguity that allows for divergent interpretations by the parties involved, necessitating active international oversight and technical coordination mechanisms to ensure implementation without violations.” El-Hefny believes that Israel’s compliance with the agreement will depend on sustained international pressure, particularly from the United States, adding that international incentives and monitoring may limit minor breaches. However, he warned that the trust of the public and victims will remain limited until tangible results are achieved on the ground.
The former Assistant Foreign Minister explained that Gaza faces two possible scenarios: either an effective reconstruction process backed by international support, accompanied by the establishment of a temporary technocratic administration paving the way for long-term stability, or a fragile truce marred by violations, delays in reconstruction funding, and Israel retaining partial border control—thereby hindering disarmament efforts and the building of unified Palestinian security institutions.
He added: “The success of the Sharm El-Sheikh Summit depends on the international community’s ability to translate political will into practical implementation and effective monitoring. This requires continued Palestinian-Palestinian dialogue and the provision of financial and political guarantees that can stabilize any signed agreement, while upholding the core Palestinian rights as the foundation for any fair and lasting solution.” El-Hefny also pointed out that international prosecutions represent both a legal option and a moral necessity for holding perpetrators accountable. He referred to an ongoing diplomatic and legal struggle between the desire for accountability and the obstacles to its application, particularly given the resistance of major powers and their political support for certain actors. Nonetheless, he stressed that the judicial path requires precise documentation and institutional international backing to ensure that the accused appear before international or independent national courts.
Meanwhile, Palestinian political analyst Dr. Ayman Al-Raqab, professor of political science at Al-Quds University, explained that Trump’s 20-point peace plan contains numerous loopholes and problems, the most prominent of which concern the prisoner exchange—which has not yet been implemented due to the difficulty of recovering Israeli bodies buried under Gaza’s rubble, and the deaths of several individuals who participated in those burials. He noted that other vague clauses remain contentious, including the mechanism for Hamas’ disarmament, the identity of the entity that will govern Gaza after the war, and the future of the security file. At the same time, international mediators are dissecting the agreement clause by clause to clarify it, since the plan, despite its initial endorsement, still requires in-depth negotiations.
He told Zawia3: “Palestinian experience with the Israeli occupation reveals a repeated pattern of procrastination, as seen with Israel’s partial withdrawal from southern Lebanon, which remains incomplete to this day. There are fears of a similar scenario in Gaza, where the occupation has so far withdrawn from only about 50% of the territory. Netanyahu’s statements about preventing Gaza from possessing weapons or manufacturing capabilities confirm Israel’s intention to prolong the conflict and exhaust the Palestinians. Nonetheless, Trump’s signing of the ceasefire agreement represents an important guarantee of Israel’s commitment to the truce.”
Al-Raqab stressed that transforming Gaza from an unlivable environment into one that is sustainable depends entirely on the success of reconstruction. He said that the occupation seeks to push Gaza’s residents toward voluntary migration through destruction, despair, and the collapse of infrastructure. However, the current Arab and international strategy aims to restore hope in Gaza. He noted that Egypt has begun sending heavy machinery to remove rubble as part of an integrated reconstruction project estimated to cost about 92 billion dollars and that Trump has hinted that Gulf countries will bear the largest share of the funding—a factor that may pose challenges to ensuring payment commitments.
The Palestinian political analyst added that the Sharm El-Sheikh Summit, for which Cairo made immense diplomatic efforts, enjoyed significant political and international momentum. He noted that Egypt had several clear objectives in organizing the conference: first, to safeguard the ceasefire through the presence of an American guarantor—Washington having officially signed the agreement—and second, to launch Gaza’s reconstruction, a topic discussed extensively. A special reconstruction conference is expected to be held soon in a European capital, with Egyptian participation aimed at securing the largest possible volume of funding.
Al-Raqab added: “The Egyptian president’s speech emphasized the necessity of ending the conflict through the establishment of an independent Palestinian state living in peace, whereas U.S. President Donald Trump avoided addressing this point, merely referring to what he called the ‘Abraham Peace.’ Palestinians had hoped the summit would produce recommendations reflecting U.S. approval for opening new political tracks between Palestinians and Israelis, leading to lasting peace based on the two-state solution or self-determination for the Palestinian people. This, however, did not materialize. Nevertheless, the summit represented an important turning point for consolidating the truce and reinforcing international momentum behind the Palestinian cause.”
The Al-Quds University professor confirmed that Egypt opposed the continuation of the war from the outset and worked by all means to stop the fighting while supporting the Palestinian position politically, economically, and legally. Cairo adopted the Palestinian narrative in international forums, defended the two-state solution, and exposed Israeli violations in legal assemblies while rejecting forced or voluntary displacement—a stance backed by numerous Arab and European capitals, which helped push efforts toward ending the war.
Al-Raqab believes that Trump is attempting to appear as a peacemaker despite his role in fueling the conflict. He noted that Trump’s narcissistic and contradictory personality compelled Egyptian diplomacy to engage him intelligently—praising his role publicly to ensure his continued commitment to the truce. He affirmed that the rising global solidarity with the Palestinian cause signals a new phase of resilience and international accountability for the occupation.
He concluded that the Palestinian people will not abandon their pursuit of legal and international justice against Israeli leaders, stating: “Rights do not expire with time, and the coming stage will witness intensified Palestinian and international efforts to document crimes and prosecute those responsible.” Al-Raqab added that while the current situation is difficult, it does not amount to defeat: “It is merely the bending of wheat stalks before the storm.” He emphasized that the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court against Netanyahu and his former defense minister represent a crucial development in the path toward international accountability—despite attempts by Washington and several European capitals to obstruct it.
Despite the hopes raised by the Sharm El-Sheikh Peace Summit to end Gaza’s longest and bloodiest war—and despite the unprecedented diplomatic momentum that restored Egypt to the forefront of the regional political scene—the road toward lasting peace remains fraught with challenges. The agreement, signed amid celebratory scenes, now faces the test of implementation on a land soaked with devastation and loss. While Cairo strives to consolidate the truce and lead reconstruction efforts, and Washington promotes its plan as a historic breakthrough, it is ultimately the Palestinian people who bear the cost of every delay or failure in execution. The Sharm El-Sheikh Summit stands as a defining moment in the trajectory of the conflict—but also as a reminder that true peace is not written on paper alone, but built through genuine will that restores to the Palestinian people their right to life and dignity on their own land.
