The declaration promises peace and prosperity, but leaves the hard questions unanswered.

From Oslo to Sharm El-Sheikh: Can the Gaza Peace Accord Succeed Where Camp David and Oslo Failed?

By Panos Kountouriotis — Editorial Contributor

Read more...

On October 13, 2025, a sweeping peace accord was signed in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, ending over two years of war between Israel and Hamas. Brokered by the United States, Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey, the agreement promises not only a ceasefire and hostage release, but a roadmap for reconstruction, human rights, and regional stability. Yet history casts a long shadow. The failures of Camp David (1978) and Oslo (1993–1995) remind us that peace in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is rarely a matter of signatures alone.

Camp David: Peace Without Palestinians

The Camp David Accords secured peace between Egypt and Israel, but excluded Palestinians from the process. The vague promise of autonomy for Palestinians lacked enforcement and legitimacy. Arab states viewed Egypt’s separate peace as betrayal, and the agreement failed to address the core issue of Palestinian self-determination.

Oslo: Process Without Resolution

Oslo marked a breakthrough in direct Israeli–Palestinian dialogue, but deferred critical issues—borders, refugees, Jerusalem—to an undefined future. Meanwhile, Israeli settlements expanded, violence escalated, and the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin shattered momentum. Oslo institutionalized a fragmented Palestinian Authority without sovereignty, while Israel retained control over borders and security.

Sharm El-Sheikh 2025: A New Framework or Familiar Illusion?

The Gaza Peace Accord, signed by President Donald Trump, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, pledges a “future of lasting peace” and mutual respect for human rights. It includes:

• Ceasefire and hostage release: 20 Israeli hostages freed; ~2,000 Palestinian prisoners released
• Commitment to reconstruction: International funding and oversight for rebuilding Gaza
• Recognition of cultural heritage: Protection of religious sites and historical memory
• Multilateral guarantees: A coalition of regional powers backing implementation

Yet the accord’s success hinges on unresolved questions:

• Will Israel and Hamas honor the terms beyond the initial phase?
• Can regional powers enforce compliance without U.S. hegemony?
• Will Palestinian political fragmentation—between Hamas and the PA—undermine implementation?
• Is there a credible path to statehood, or merely humanitarian management?

Conclusion: Peace Requires Power-Sharing, Not Just Paper

Camp David and Oslo failed because they prioritized strategic optics over structural justice. The Sharm El-Sheikh Accord offers a broader coalition and humanitarian emphasis, but risks repeating past mistakes if it avoids the core political question: Palestinian sovereignty. Without enforceable guarantees, inclusive representation, and a clear path to final status, peace may remain a performance—rather than a transformation.

© 2025 Prokaliptika News