Opinion: Sharm el-Sheikh's fragile truce in Gaza

Editor's note: Wang Jin is an assistant director of the Institute of Middle East Studies at Northwest University of China and a research fellow of the Center for China and Globalization. The article reflects the author's opinion and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The peace summit held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, served not only as a significant stage for the United States to showcase its diplomatic achievements, but also as a crucial opportunity to strengthen the confidence of its Middle Eastern allies and European partners in advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace. However, since the fundamental contradictions between Israel and Hamas remain unresolved, the ceasefire in Gaza continues to face serious challenges.

The primary objective of the Sharm el-Sheikh summit was to demonstrate the efforts and contributions made by the United States and other participating states in promoting a ceasefire in Gaza. After more than two years of intense conflict, Israel and Hamas finally reached a ceasefire agreement of considerable importance. According to the agreement, during the first phase of the truce, Hamas released detained Israeli nationals and returned the remains of deceased captives; in return, Israel released hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, withdrew its forces from parts of Gaza, and halted military operations. Furthermore, Israel reopened five border crossings and allowed a large influx of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To a certain extent, this first-phase truce satisfied the core demands of both parties and temporarily brought an end to two years of violent confrontation.

It should be noted, however, that although the achievement of the first-phase ceasefire appeared smooth, it required significant efforts and diplomatic mediation by the United States and several Middle Eastern states. On the one hand, Washington exerted considerable pressure on Israel – particularly during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent visit to the United States – where President Donald Trump repeatedly urged him to accept the ceasefire proposal. In response, Netanyahu adopted a posture of domestic political toughness to placate right-wing and far-right elements within his cabinet, who reluctantly accepted the ceasefire arrangement. He was also compelled to issue a public apology to Qatar for Israel's military strikes on the country in September. On the other hand, the United States successfully coordinated with Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and other regional actors to apply parallel pressure on Hamas, ultimately compelling it to make concessions by releasing detained Israelis and returning their remains.

The ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas thus became an important source of diplomatic capital for Trump. It represented the first formal ceasefire accord successfully brokered by his administration on a major international issue. Before taking office, Trump had repeatedly asserted that, if elected, he could swiftly bring about a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and also facilitate peace between Russia and Ukraine. Yet, since assuming office earlier this year, his diplomatic mediation efforts had achieved limited progress in both the Israeli-Palestinian and Russia-Ukraine conflicts. Consequently, the successful mediation of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire was inevitably framed and promoted by Trump and his administration as a major foreign policy victory. The convening of the Sharm el-Sheikh summit, in turn, was portrayed as a tangible manifestation of this diplomatic success.

At the same time, the ceasefire also offered the United States a critical opportunity to recalibrate its relations with Middle Eastern states. Following the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas conflict in October 2023, Washington's long-standing pro-Israel stance had deepened divisions with the international community – particularly with Arab nations. The situation worsened after Israel's September 2025 attack on Qatar, which placed U.S.-Gulf relations under unprecedented strain. Through the Sharm el-Sheikh summit, the United States aimed to mend its ties with Arab countries, especially the Gulf states, and to sustain cooperation in key areas, such as energy, technology, finance and regional security.

Nevertheless, the current ceasefire between Israel and Hamas remains fragile and requires sustained international support, particularly from the mediating parties. While the first-phase truce was implemented successfully, deep disagreements persist regarding Gaza's future political framework, economic reconstruction and humanitarian assistance. Moreover, the international community has yet to form a unified position on these critical issues. In this context, the Sharm el-Sheikh summit serves as a platform for the United States, Europe and regional states to coordinate policy positions and consolidate international consensus around the Gaza ceasefire.

Even so, the significance and impact of the Sharm el-Sheikh summit should not be overstated. First, the hostile relationship between Israel and Hamas remains unresolved. The summit invited only Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, while Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, after considerable hesitation, ultimately declined to attend, and Hamas was not invited at all. Consequently, the summit was unable to directly influence the political or military decision-making of the two main parties. Second, the peace plan proposed by the United States and its partners faces considerable implementation challenges, particularly regarding Gaza's political reconstruction. The U.S.-led initiative explicitly calls for the disarmament and dissolution of Hamas – a condition the organization firmly rejects. Meanwhile, neither the Palestinian Authority nor the international community is presently capable of establishing a credible administrative mechanism to govern Gaza in the short term. Under these circumstances, negotiations over the second-phase ceasefire and the construction of a new political framework are unlikely to advance quickly.

Finally, humanitarian relief and economic reconstruction continue to face acute shortages of resources and financial support. Although humanitarian supplies have entered Gaza in large quantities since the ceasefire, much of this aid consists of materials that had been stockpiled in surrounding areas over the past two years. Given Gaza's devastated economy and deteriorating social order, the international community will need to provide long-term assistance to more than 2 million residents. However, considering the extended time frame and enormous financial costs, it may prove difficult to sustain such large-scale aid or to fully finance Gaza's economic recovery. Consequently, the region is likely to face ongoing economic and social instability in the foreseeable future.

The Sharm el-Sheikh summit underscores the United States' renewed engagement with Middle Eastern affairs, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Yet, the current dialogue between Israel and Hamas should not be equated with the advent of genuine peace; the risk of renewed conflict remains high. Moving forward, Gaza's security, political order, economy and social reconstruction will confront multiple challenges. While celebrating this diplomatic achievement, the United States and its partners must also devise pragmatic, sustainable strategies and shoulder their international responsibilities to preserve long-term stability in Gaza. Within the framework of the "two-state solution," the ultimate goal should be to achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive resolution to the Palestinian question.