Gaza Peace Deal Hailed as Historic — but Fragile Without Israel’s Presence

Gaza Peace Deal Hailed as Historic — but Fragile Without Israel’s Presence

Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt — A peace agreement aimed at ending the war in Gaza has been hailed as a historic breakthrough by international leaders, though questions remain over its durability following Israel’s absence from the signing summit in Sharm el-Sheikh.

The accord, signed by former US President Donald Trump alongside leaders from Egypt, Turkey, Qatar, and other regional powers, has been welcomed as a landmark step toward stability, humanitarian relief, and reconstruction in the Gaza Strip. However, analysts and diplomats warn that without Israel’s direct involvement, the path to lasting peace may prove uncertain.

Questions over Israel’s absence

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declined to attend the summit, reportedly citing religious observance and political considerations. His decision has prompted widespread concern about how key elements of the deal —including the release of Palestinian prisoners, Gaza’s administration, and security coordination— can be implemented without Israel’s participation.

Correspondents for Reuters and the BBC note that while the agreement establishes an important framework for Gaza’s future governance, the lack of Israeli engagement could hinder its practical execution, particularly regarding Palestinian Authority reforms and the rejection of armed militancy.

Diverging media tones

Coverage from CNN and Fox News has been more upbeat, focusing on Mr Trump’s assertion that “the war is over” and that a “new era” is beginning for the Middle East. Both outlets frame the deal as a continuation of the Abraham Accords, highlighting potential for economic recovery and regional cooperation. They describe Israel’s absence as temporary rather than decisive, pointing to its earlier involvement in stages such as hostage negotiations.

By contrast, European and Middle Eastern commentators —including analysts writing for The Economist and Al Jazeera— stress that while the inclusion of Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar provides short-term diplomatic momentum, the long-term sustainability of the agreement will depend on genuine political convergence between Israel and the Palestinians.

Cautious optimism

Overall, international reaction reflects measured optimism. The deal is seen as a significant diplomatic achievement with immediate humanitarian benefits, but many observers remain sceptical about its long-term viability in the absence of Israel. Diplomatic sources suggest that further negotiations will be required to bring Israel fully into the process and to prevent a relapse into conflict —a reminder that, while the guns may have fallen silent for now, the region’s fragile peace still hangs in the balance.