As the eyes of the world turned to the Sharm El-Sheikh Peace Summit, experts said the summit’s most significant outcomes included restraining Netanyahu’s aggressiveness and bringing the two-state solution back into international discourse. They also pointed to a potential breakthrough — discussions around a UN Security Council resolution that would authorize the formation of an Arab–Islamic peacekeeping force under UN auspices, a step deemed vital to curbing far-right Israeli ambitions and preventing renewed conflict in Gaza.
اضافة اعلان
U.S. President Donald Trump, during the signing of the “Gaza Document” at the summit, called it “a great day for the Middle East,” stressing that the agreement would endure. He said teams were working in Gaza to locate the remains of Israeli hostages and reiterated his rejection of any new war in the region.
Trump held a copy of the document bearing a written pledge to promote peace, tolerance, dignity, and equal opportunity for all peoples of the region regardless of race or religion.
The document outlined the leaders’ commitment to a “comprehensive vision for peace, security, and shared prosperity,” grounded in mutual respect and a shared destiny. It also welcomed progress in establishing sustainable peace arrangements in Gaza and the growing friendly relations between Israel and neighboring states.
The Reconstruction and Settlement Framework
Dr. Khaled Shneikat, President of the Jordanian Political Science Association, said the document’s content was “clear and public,” encompassing an end to hostilities, prisoner exchanges, reconstruction, disarmament, and the formation of a transitional administrative government to run Gaza.
He explained that Israel’s domestic political scene reflected “a state of confusion,” noting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had declared the end of the war before the Knesset — a statement he had made several times before — and that Trump himself had stated the war was “indeed over.”
Shneikat described the scale of destruction in Gaza as catastrophic, saying the war had “completely transformed” the enclave, destroying hospitals, schools, universities, and core infrastructure.
He emphasized that the key issue now is rebuilding Gaza and ensuring that resources flow rapidly into the strip, warning that the devastation “far exceeds expectations.” Reconstruction, he added, “will take many years” and could face “obstacles, bargaining, and blackmail,” especially from the occupation authorities.
He cautioned that Tel Aviv may return to its pre–October 7, 2023 approach of intermittently controlling and halting aid entry, effectively recreating “the old game” that prevailed before the Al-Aqsa Flood operation. That operation, he said, was meant to change that dynamic — leaving Gaza’s future open to many possibilities.
Reviving the Two-State Solution
Military and strategic analyst Nidal Abu Zeid said the Sharm El-Sheikh summit’s most notable outcome was the revival of the two-state solution as part of the global debate. He also cited the proposal of a UN-sanctioned Arab–Islamic force as a crucial step to restrain Israeli extremism and prevent a military relapse in Gaza.
Abu Zeid argued that the summit’s outcomes benefit Gaza both diplomatically and in reconstruction, adding that Jordanian diplomacy played a major role in reviving the two-state dialogue.
Regarding Gaza’s resistance factions, he said: “Those who proved themselves in the battlefield are capable of asserting themselves in governance.” He pointed out that within 72 hours of the ceasefire, the resistance restored stability, contained occupation-backed militias, handed over prisoners, and redeployed police forces.
He added that the resistance immediately began clearing rubble, reopening main roads, and restoring water and electricity networks, demonstrating “a unique model of administrative and security control.”
Though the resistance announced it would not participate in governance “the day after” the ceasefire, Abu Zeid said this was now being linked to a limited transitional phase, suggesting a potential return to administrative involvement afterward.
He added that the emergence of an Arab–Islamic force in Gaza could prevent Israel from resuming hostilities or conducting covert operations — “a scenario reminiscent of the Lebanese model.”
Abu Zeid said the reconstruction file also strengthens the resistance’s position, as it cannot bear the estimated $80 billion cost alone amid Israeli attempts to render Gaza uninhabitable. He noted that reconstruction could revive Gaza’s economy and administration in the short and medium term — even if framed within ideas like Trump and Netanyahu’s “Gaza Riviera” project — asserting that the resistance “can counter such schemes, even peacefully,” insisting that no administration in Gaza will exist without its participation.
Peace Plan Lacks Clear Mechanisms
Jihad Harb, Director of the Thabat Research Center, said the document reflects a general inclination toward peace in the Middle East, but the path remains unclear, especially regarding a Palestinian state or the implementation of the two-state framework endorsed by UN resolutions.
He said the document read more like a broad declaration than a concrete roadmap, lacking serious enforcement mechanisms.
Harb added that while Trump remains committed to his 20-point peace plan, recent talk about expanding the Peace Council and its leadership could lead to a new track differing from his initial proposal. However, he noted that the latest statements lacked operational details, particularly regarding Gaza.
He said the document envisioned Gaza as a demilitarized zone and called for serious reconstruction, but left governance structures undefined, subject to future negotiations. Harb added that Trump did not clarify the roles of international figures such as former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, or how they would fit into Gaza’s future administration.
He noted that the participation of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the summit “could signal a potential role for the Palestinian Authority” in the next phase, though the extent of that role remains uncertain.
He stressed that what is unfolding may represent a reassessment of some elements of Trump’s plan, but it is too early to judge the mechanisms that will be adopted for Gaza amid the ambiguity surrounding both the document and U.S. statements.
Complex Challenges Ahead
Political analyst and Israeli affairs researcher Ismat Mansour said that merely ending the war and uniting Arab and international will, with U.S. leadership of the peace effort, suggests that “the era of open confrontation may not return,” effectively limiting Netanyahu’s freedom of action, which had previously enjoyed wide latitude.
Mansour noted that while Trump’s remarks before the Knesset were clear, the Gaza document itself suffered from vague phrasing, failing to define the principles of peace, prosperity, and cooperation precisely.
He added that key international references — such as the peace process and UN Security Council resolutions supporting the two-state solution — were entirely absent, rendering the document “a set of positive intentions without enforcement criteria,” and that Netanyahu’s rejection of these principles “further weakened its value and essence.”
Mansour said the challenges in Gaza are immense, from stabilizing the population and addressing humanitarian needs to reconstruction, governance, disarmament, and the future of Hamas — as well as the Palestinian Authority’s ability to prove its readiness to govern, and Netanyahu’s willingness to facilitate such steps.
He warned that Gaza faces intertwined political, economic, and security challenges, including the hostage issue, which could obstruct agreements and fuel further tension.
“The Strip is utterly devastated and its needs are endless,” Mansour said, “making every aspect of this process a true test for the leaders and states that sponsored the document — and for Israel’s political leadership, which is unlikely to ease the path forward.”
He emphasized that reconstruction efforts will depend on the seriousness of progress in other tracks, as no state will invest or deploy funds or troops in Gaza without clear guarantees of Palestinian involvement, non-resumption of war, and a defined political horizon for the Strip’s future.
“All of these issues,” Mansour concluded, “ultimately hinge on Netanyahu’s stance — and that of the Israeli state.”
— (Al-Ghad)
