When the bombing of Gaza finally stopped on 13 October, the silence carried the weight of months of deliberate work by Egyptian diplomacy.
The outcome was not an accident, but the result of steady diplomacy built on patience and experience. From its base in Sharm El-Sheikh, the Egyptian team guided one of the most complex rounds of indirect negotiation in the long history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Political statements were turned into a realistic plan of action, with measurable steps on the ground.
Egypt’s mediators shaped a ceasefire that relied on a clear and logical sequence. Israeli forces began a partial withdrawal from Gaza’s most crowded areas. Hostages were exchanged for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. Humanitarian aid flowed immediately through the Rafah Crossing. Every commitment had a specific timetable and a system of verification. For diplomats, this was a practical and attainable outcome. For the people of Gaza, it meant the first real pause in fighting after two exhausting years of devastation.
Hosting the talks in Sharm El-Sheikh was a deliberate choice. The Red Sea city, within Egypt’s national security zone, offers both proximity to Gaza and distance from the frontlines. The setting allowed Cairo to create an environment of calm, far from the political theatre and media noise. Negotiations were conducted indirectly, a method long favoured by Egypt, which gave professional teams on both sides the space to concentrate without pressure or posturing.
This method reflects a long tradition of Egyptian crisis management. Since the first major confrontation in Gaza in 2007, Egypt’s diplomatic and intelligence services have built a model based on three principles: early engagement, open communication, and the separation of practical measures from political symbolism.
The same model was followed again in 2025. Egyptian officials moved patiently between the delegations, drafting and redrafting language that could satisfy both sides. Cairo avoided grand slogans and focused instead on workable arrangements to end the violence and ease the suffering.
The results appeared quickly. Within hours of the truce taking effect, aid convoys crossed the Rafah Crossing under Egyptian and United Nations supervision. Civilians began moving cautiously through northern Gaza as Israeli forces pulled back to agreed lines. Within days, hundreds of trucks were entering the Strip daily. For the Egyptian team, this movement of supplies and people was the clearest sign that the first phase of the agreement was on track.
President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi then worked to secure international backing. Cairo called for a summit to be held in Sharm El-Sheikh, co-chaired with the president of the United States. This will bring together leaders from Europe, the United States, and the Arab world to give political weight to the ceasefire and lay down a framework for reconstruction.
The meeting is not a ceremony but a practical exercise in accountability, ensuring that any breach of the agreement will be visible to all.
RED LINES: From the outset, Cairo set ethical and security red lines that have never shifted. There would be no displacement of the Gaza population into Sinai and no disguised demographic engineering.
This was not a slogan for domestic reassurance, but was a structural condition built into every stage of the negotiations. The crossings in Gaza, Egyptian officials insisted, were designed to return people to their homes, not to empty the land of its inhabitants. That firmness shaped the discussion in every diplomatic arena where the details of Gaza’s future were being written.
In the technical drafting of the ceasefire’s clauses, Egypt played the role of what one Western diplomat called “the architect of timing.” The prisoner lists underwent painstaking adjustments to prevent disputes over individual names from halting the process. The goal was simple and pragmatic; to turn the most sensitive issues into a chain of measurable steps, so that trust could be quantified rather than declared.
Among the guarantees Cairo focused on was closing the door to any ambiguity in the management of movement through the Rafah Crossing. The agreed mechanism allows monitored exits and returns under a European mission coordinated by Egypt and supervised by the United Nations. Behind the procedural complexity lies a straightforward principle: the crossing must function in both directions under transparent rules.
Egypt also structured the Israeli pullback so that it would not be mistaken for a security vacuum. The redeployment plan is supported by a joint civil-military coordination cell outside the Strip, alongside internal policing units operating in evacuated areas to prevent friction. The intention was to reduce what Egyptian mediators call “the first-hour storms” that often swallow fragile truces before they can mature into stability.
With measured calm, Cairo gathered crucial mediators around one table, Qatar and Turkey on one side, and American envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner on the other. This mix produced a shared language on two key issues: the rhythm of the withdrawal and the sequence of the prisoner exchanges. Egypt’s ability to translate the political vocabulary of each delegation into a single schedule of commitments was, in the words of one observer, “a piece of Egyptian craftsmanship.”
The success of the Egyptian effort lies in its discipline and restraint. Cairo’s negotiators deliberately avoided linking the ceasefire to broader political questions such as Gaza’s long-term administration or final status. Those difficult issues were left for later, when a degree of calm might allow deeper discussion.
In Sharm El-Sheikh the focus stayed firmly on security and humanitarian needs. That clarity protected the process from ideological disputes or unrealistic demands, especially from the Israeli side. It also gave each party enough space to accept compromise without losing face.
Throughout the talks, Egypt maintained careful coordination with its regional partners. Qatar and Turkey remained active through their contacts with the Palestinian factions, but Egypt retained control over the schedule, the verification process, and the general direction of the talks.
The United States guaranteed Israel’s participation and compliance, while European governments focused on financing humanitarian support. This distribution of efforts reflected the reality of a crowded and complex region but also kept the process under a single guiding hand.
RESPONSIBILITY: The Sharm El-Sheikh Summit gives the truce international weight.
It has turned what had begun as a local understanding into a collective commitment. By involving the major global and regional powers, Egypt has ensured that the ceasefire has become a shared responsibility, not a temporary gesture. The summit also gave the process political visibility without losing focus on practical follow-up.
In Cairo, there is no illusion about how fragile the calm remains. Diplomats describe the current period as a “testing phase” in which humanitarian work continues while trust is slowly rebuilt. The next stage will be more difficult and will involve defining a temporary administration for Gaza, managing the inflow of weapons, and preventing a return to large-scale conflict. Each of these tasks will require further negotiation and will almost certainly need Egyptian supervision.
Yet, the events have reaffirmed a truth that has shaped Egypt’s position for decades. Geography makes Cairo the natural gatekeeper of regional stability, and long experience makes it effective. Egypt has learned to manage crises that others prefer to comment on from afar. Its diplomacy is not dramatic but methodical, guided by verification, persistence, and patience.
On the ground, the impact is already visible. The long lines at the Rafah Crossing, the reopened warehouses, and the activity inside Gaza’s hospitals speak of a population beginning to recover. The Egyptian trucks crossing the border every day are more than vehicles of relief. They are extensions of a policy that sees diplomacy as a form of service that is practical, patient, and sustained.
Internationally, the ceasefire has also reshaped Egypt’s relations with its main partners. Washington views Cairo as an essential stabiliser, while European capitals see in Egypt a buffer against new waves of displacement and instability on the southern shores of the Mediterranean. Within the Arab world, Egypt’s approach stands apart for its calm, its inclusiveness, and its focus on state responsibility rather than emotional rhetoric.
The October ceasefire has not ended the Gaza conflict, but it has restored faith in negotiation at a time of deep exhaustion and mistrust. Egypt’s method of limited objectives, fixed timelines, and shared guarantees offers a model for diplomacy that delivers results. It is a form of statecraft that avoids spectacle but achieves endurance.
Gaza’s wounds remain deep after two years of war. No agreement can heal them quickly. Yet, this truce has opened the first real space for recovery and for a return to political dialogue. Egypt’s achievement is therefore both diplomatic and moral. It has proved once again that negotiation, however difficult, is better than the endless repetition of war.
In quiet moments, Egyptian officials often describe their work as “keeping the dialogue alive.” The phrase captures the essence of Egypt’s role in maintaining the machinery of peace when others lose the will to turn to it. The Sharm El-Sheikh negotiations will be remembered not for ceremony or slogans but for one simple truth. For the first time in years, the war stopped, and Egypt made it happen.
The world’s responsibility after Sharm El-Sheikh is inescapable and must now be measured in action, not in words.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 16 October, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: