Sharm el-Sheikh Summit: A Fragile Hope for Lasting Peace in Gaza

On October 13, a significant summit took place in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, where leaders gathered to discuss pressing issues surrounding the ongoing crisis in the region. This summit highlighted a ceasefire agreement and laid out reconstruction promises. However, as the ceremonial proceedings concluded, a stark reality emerged, prompting experts, rights groups, and Palestinian leaders to voice their concerns. The accord appears to value immediate relief over long-term justice, with dangerous gaps that could unravel the temporary calm.

The framework of the agreement rests on three fragile pillars:

1. Demand for Demilitarization: Palestinian groups are required to demilitarize, yet there are no concrete or impartial enforcement measures in place. Diplomats and observers, including Robert Malley, have expressed skepticism regarding the implementation of the broader 20-point plan as written. They anticipate that only the most immediate measures will be adhered to. Expecting a power-asymmetric actor to disarm without reciprocal guarantees may lead to either superficial compliance or the covert retention of arms, both of which pose a risk of renewed violence.
2. Lack of Legitimacy: The consensus reached at the summit was achieved without the presence of either Israel or Hamas during the signing ceremony. On October 14, Egypt proposed an interim administration of technocrats, comprising 15 names allegedly vetted by Israel and endorsed by regional mediators. For many Palestinians, this raises significant concerns regarding external control over their political future. Journalists and locals criticized the event as “hollow choreography,” emphasizing that it sidelines the very individuals whose consent is crucial for achieving lasting peace. The imposition of technocratic governance, even when framed as neutral, risks deepening dependency rather than restoring true sovereignty.
3. Deferred Accountability: Human Rights Watch has emphasized the importance of the truce while cautioning that it serves as “no substitute” for necessary actions regarding aid, justice, and sustainable political change. For many Palestinians, a ceasefire that does not explicitly dismantle the blockade, secure rights, or establish credible pathways for accountability is merely a temporary pause that maintains existing structures of oppression.

On October 14, Israeli forces violated the ceasefire by killing nine Palestinians in Gaza and destroying homes and shops during their withdrawal. This incident further fueled fears that the term “ceasefire” does not equate to genuine safety.

The structural uncertainties surrounding this agreement lead to several possible scenarios:

• If optimism prevails—though this is unlikely without strong UN verification and political will from influential states—phased implementation could result in limited reconstruction and a fragile political transition.
• Conversely, it is more plausible that a temporary lull will give way to a prolonged stalemate, characterized by minimal reconstruction efforts, stalled governance, and Palestinians enduring constrained sovereignty.

Additionally, Israel has intensified its siege, blocking aid and keeping Rafah closed until Hamas returns the bodies of captives, many of whom were killed in previous Israeli airstrikes and remain buried under rubble. This situation signals to Palestinians that collective punishment persists under the guise of a ceasefire.

The most tragic and plausible scenario involves a complete breakdown, reverting to full-scale hostilities and forcing Gaza’s civilians to bear the brunt of the human cost once more.

Voices from Gaza and their advocates recognize the agreement for what it truly represents: urgent humanitarian relief packaged within a diplomatic framework that neglects the essential structural remedies demanded by Palestinians.

As historian Rashid Khalidi and frontline journalists have pointed out, without addressing key issues such as occupation, accountability, and control over borders and resources, the Sharm el-Sheikh summit risks being remembered not as a starting point for justice but as yet another interlude—a pause that merely reconfigures the machinery of dispossession.

If the international community genuinely aims to disrupt the cycle of conflict, it must approach the ceasefire as a foundation for enforceable rights. This includes independent investigations, unconditional humanitarian access, and a political trajectory that acknowledges Palestinian self-determination, rather than viewing it as a mere conclusion.

Otherwise, the applause from the summit will resonate only over the rubble and uncertainty, leaving the people of Gaza to question whether their brief respite signifies relief or simply the calm before yet another storm.