Beneath the theatre, the war’s conclusion revealed a deeper reality: power in the region now rests increasingly on diplomatic expertise no less than on military might or financial resources.
Egypt’s role was both decisive and skilful in halting the Israeli war and also preventing its forced displacement of Gaza’s population into Sinai, a development that would have inaugurated the final phase of liquidating the Palestinian question.
However, the challenges of transforming this fragile truce into a lasting political framework remain formidable. Cairo must now coordinate donors, reconcile diverging Arab interests, and engage with Palestinian factions while safeguarding its own borders and internal stability.
From the outset, Cairo maintained open communication with all parties but also exercised pressure, seeking to prevent escalation, stop Israeli acts of genocide and forced displacement, secure humanitarian access, and protect its border security. This dual strategy -combining mediation with calibrated pressure- set the stage for what followed.
Yesterday, October 13th, two sharply contrasting scenes unfolded: one in Israel, the other in Egypt. In Israel, President Donald Trump addressed the Knesset, praising what he called Israel’s “victory of endurance” and urging it to “turn force into peace.”
His speech, warmly received by the Knesset majority, offered political reassurance to Israel and personal vindication to Prime Minister Netanyahu, but provided little clarity on Gaza’s future or the parameters of peace. It reaffirmed Washington’s unwavering commitment to Israel while largely sidestepping the Palestinian question; reflection of the administration’s preference for spectacle over structural diplomacy.
In Sharm El-Sheikh, the Peace Summit of 2025, hosted by Egypt, sought to transform the ceasefire into a structured diplomatic process. The summit gathered international and regional actors to discuss Gaza’s reconstruction, governance, and security arrangements. Cairo played its cards shrewdly -using Trump’s leadership and love of spectacle, the presence of global and regional leaders, and the momentum of ending a war that had dragged on for two years to exert pressure on Israel to honour its commitments, while replacing Cairo as the principal engineer behind the entire arrangement.
Donald Trump was awarded the Order of the Nile, Egypt’s most prestigious state decoration. To many observers, the gesture symbolized Egypt’s nuanced understanding of political theatre. It was a calculated exercise in diplomacy: acknowledging Trump’s appetite for spectacle while subtly transforming it into a tool of statecraft. By granting him the recognition he sought, Egypt secured the recognition it needed: a reaffirmation of its central regional role, its continued relevance to Washington, and its indispensable position in any post-war arrangement.
The contrast between Trump’s personal showmanship and Egypt’s collective diplomacy was telling. His two interventions in Egypt and Israel reaffirmed America’s leadership weight but lacked policy substance.
The Sharm El-Sheikh summit, by contrast, reflected the growing operational centrality of Egypt’s diplomacy -one that is rooted in well-orchestrated internal institutional processes, patience, and active external coalition-building. The United States remains of course the key actor, but the legitimacy and practicality of post-war conflict management are increasingly shifting toward regional frameworks led by Cairo and its partners.
Egypt’s leadership role is no longer confined to ceasefire management. Its current objective is to shape the post-war architecture: preventing Gaza’s collapse, facilitating reconstruction, and ensuring that the Palestinian question is addressed through Arab-led diplomacy rather than external imposition.
Out of the war’s debris, a new alignment has emerged linking Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey, united by shared interests in preserving Palestinian agency and limiting unilateral external control. Yet this emerging front faces resentment from other important regional actors - ones that, while pursuing legitimate ambitions of leadership, have preferred accommodation with Israel and prioritize stability through external partnerships.
This divergence reflects two coexisting visions of Arab diplomacy: one grounded in mediation and regional ownership, the other in cautious normalization and transactional pragmatism. Still, their goals are not mutually exclusive. Coordinating efforts could strengthen Arab influence and enhance regional stability. Egypt, maintaining dialogue with both groups, is uniquely positioned to bridge these approaches and convert quiet competition into a broader functional complementarity.
Within Gaza, Hamas remains both a governing authority and a symbol of endurance. To many Palestinians, its survival embodies steadfastness against an overwhelming occupying force; to others, it represents a strategy that exacted unbearable costs. Politically, Hamas is wounded but appears to remain operational, yet it faces the daunting task of governing amid devastation while justifying a confrontation that left Gaza in ruins.
At the international level, Hamas has nonetheless somehow re-emerged as a recognized symbol of Palestinian armed resistance and national liberation across much of global public opinion. Yet nearly all “day-after” proposals begin from the premise that Hamas -still considered a terrorist organization in the USA and most Western powers- cannot continue to govern Gaza and that the enclave must eventually be demilitarized.
In response, Hamas has indicated its readiness to withdraw from formal governance but insists that disarmament must remain a Palestinian collective decision, to be addressed within a national framework rather than imposed from abroad.
This issue remains the central test of post-war diplomacy. Forcing rapid disarmament risks reigniting conflict, while tolerating armed autonomy could perpetuate instability. The most viable path may lie in a phased disarmament mechanism, monitored by Egypt, Qatar and Turkey, that links political inclusion with gradual security guarantees. Such a process would require unprecedented coordination between regional mediators, Palestinian factions, and international partners.
The Palestinian political system is more fragmented than at any time since Oslo. The Palestinian Authority’s legitimacy continues to decline; its institutions are paralysed, and its influence over Gaza is negligible. For Egypt, which has invested decades in reconciliation efforts, the challenge is to rebuild a unified political front that can participate credibly in reconstruction and diplomacy. Egypt’s broader strategy must now extend beyond managing crises to helping reshape the Palestinian political landscape itself: fostering inclusivity among factions while maintaining channels with Western and regional actors. Without such coordination, reconstruction funding and humanitarian access will remain hostage to political paralysis.
Israel, for its part, exits its war on Gaza militarily capable but strategically wounded. Netanyahu’s pursuit of a “Pax Israeliana,” an order built on Israeli hegemony and regional acquiescence, has effectively collapsed. In its place has emerged a renewed “Pax Americana” under Trump -hegemonic yet unilateral, lacking the moral and multilateral legitimacy of earlier eras.
For Israel, this ensures continued protection but at the cost of deeper dependency and shrinking credibility. Also, the economic toll of two years of continuous mobilization has been heavy, with weakened investor confidence and slowing growth. Yet the more significant damage is reputational. The long-promoted image of Israel as a humane and democratic island in a sea of savage surrounding has widely eroded amid the genocidal acts that it has perpetrated and the humanitarian catastrophe it has caused in Gaza. Moreover, the myth of military invincibilityand the narrative of deterrence -pillars of Israeli strategic doctrine- have both been severely undermined in Gaza
To wrap up, apart from the Trump effect, three regional realities define the post-war moment in our opinion. First, Egypt’s spectacular diplomatic return to the regional forefront helped end the war on Gaza, but it has yet to generate a framework for lasting peace.
The Egyptian Arab-Islamic plan of March 2025 remains the most realistic hope for Gaza and the now United Nations-backed two-state solution; it is still on the table. Second, Hamas remains both an indispensable interlocutor and a structural obstacle -necessary for maintaining Palestinian domestic balance, yet resistant to disarmament. Palestinian elections could offer a way out of this dilemma. Third, Israel won’t probably refrain from its expansionist behavior.
Exercising further pressure on its right-wing government while engaging with the moderate, sensible elements, if any -and using the Trump connection pragmatically to send the right messages- may prove the most viable path forward.
Between Trump’s spectacle and Egypt’s statecraft, the region now stands at a crossroads where measured diplomacy may be the only form of power still capable of shaping sustainable peace and keeping the prospects of a two-state solution alive.
Short link: