Embedded Files
Why the Gaza Peace Deal is So Fragile: Analyzing the Sharm El Sheikh Accord
Why the Gaza Peace Deal is So Fragile: Analyzing the Sharm El Sheikh Accord
An in-depth analysis of the 2025 Sharm El Sheikh Accord. Discover the conflicting motives of the US, Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey that made the Gaza ceasefire possible—and why it remains fragile.
Understanding the real motivations for the US-brokered Gaza deal is crucial to assessing its long-term viability and the future of the region. This fragile peace is contingent not on a shared commitment, but on the volatile, personality-driven dynamics of its "coalition of guarantors
Key Takeaways Box:
Key Takeaways Box:
A Transactional Victory: For the United States under President Donald Trump, the accord was a major foreign policy "win" designed to bolster his standing as a global statesman, counter Iranian influence, and advance U.S. economic interests in Gaza's reconstruction.
A Coalition of Interests: The regional guarantors—Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey—each pursued distinct goals. Egypt sought regional stability and economic benefits, Qatar leveraged its role as a mediator to project global influence, and Turkey aimed to re-establish itself as a leading power in the Muslim world.
An Exhausted Pause: For the primary combatants, Israel and Hamas, the ceasefire was a pragmatic pause born of military and political exhaustion. It allowed both sides to regroup and claim a tactical victory without resolving any of the conflict's fundamental political questions.
The Background
The Background
The Sharm El Sheikh Accord did not emerge from a vacuum. It was brokered against the backdrop of the devastating "Long War," which began with the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023, and concluded in October 2025. This two-year conflict exacted a staggering human toll, killing nearly 68,000 Palestinians and resulting in the capture of over 250 Israeli hostages.
The ensuing Israeli military onslaught decimated the Gaza Strip, destroying the majority of homes, collapsing the economy, and culminating in a UN-declared famine. It was this context of total devastation, coupled with immense external pressure and military exhaustion on both sides, that finally forced the warring parties to the negotiating table, making a U.S.-brokered deal possible.
The Core Analysis
The Core Analysis
The central thesis of the accord's fragility lies in the transactional nature of its creation. Each stakeholder was driven to the negotiating table by a unique calculus of domestic politics, regional ambition, and economic pressure rather than a collective desire for a just and lasting resolution.
The Dealmaker and the Guarantors: A Coalition of Convenience
The Dealmaker and the Guarantors: A Coalition of Convenience
The peace process was built on a personality-driven "coalition of guarantors," making its stability contingent on their volatile interests.
For the United States, the deal was a legacy-defining achievement for President Trump, reinforcing a narrative of decisive deal-making. Domestically, it served as a high-profile diplomatic victory, while internationally it strengthened alliances with wealthy Gulf states seen as essential partners in financing Gaza's reconstruction and countering Iranian influence.
The regional powers each had their own strategic calculus. Egypt, as co-chair of the summit, was motivated by the need to prevent a mass refugee crisis on its border and reassert its traditional role as a key mediator, all while securing economic benefits from renewed stability in the Suez Canal and tourism.
Qatar leveraged its unique position as both a U.S. ally and the primary patron of Hamas's political leadership, using "checkbook diplomacy" to make itself an indispensable channel for communication and enhance its prestige as a global power broker.
Turkey's involvement was driven by President Erdoğan's ambition to position his nation as a champion of the Palestinian cause and a critical player in the post-war reconstruction of Gaza, furthering his country's regional influence.
The Belligerents: A Pragmatic Pause, Not a Lasting Peace
The Belligerents: A Pragmatic Pause, Not a Lasting Peace
For Israel and Hamas, the ceasefire represents less a conversion to peace and more a necessary pause. Israel's government, under immense pressure from the Trump administration and a domestic society galvanized by the hostage crisis, agreed to a deal that fell short of its stated goal of dismantling Hamas. The economically and diplomatically costly war made a tactical pause to regroup and repair relations with allies a strategic necessity.
For Hamas, the motivations were centered on survival and claiming a political victory. After two years of warfare that degraded its military capabilities and left Gaza in ruins, the ceasefire was essential. The agreement allows the group to survive, reassert authority, and portray its endurance against a superior military power as a victory, further bolstered by the release of nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners. However, Hamas's agreement to a multi-phase plan involving future disarmament was described by its own officials as a "risky gamble," predicated on personal assurances from President Trump rather than a foundational shift in ideology.
Implications: What Happens Next?
Implications: What Happens Next?
The future of the Sharm El Sheikh Accord is profoundly uncertain because it defers the most intractable issues to a vaguely defined "Phase 2." The peace is contingent on navigating three unresolved dilemmas.
The first is a Security Dilemma: how to achieve the disarmament of Hamas—a core Israeli demand—when Hamas's arms are its primary source of leverage and legitimacy.
Second is the Governance Dilemma: who will rule a post-war Gaza? The U.S. plan envisions a reformed Palestinian Authority, but this is rejected by the Israeli government, and Hamas will undoubtedly seek to retain political influence.
Finally, and most fundamentally, is the Political Dilemma: the accord offers no concrete, time-bound commitment to a sovereign Palestinian state, failing to address the core issue that has fueled the conflict for over 75 years. This structure suggests the accord is a tool for conflict management, not resolution, making it merely the latest truce in a seemingly endless cycle.
Final Take
Final Take
The Sharm El Sheikh Accord successfully silenced the guns, but it was constructed on a foundation of profound fragility. It was achieved not through a shared commitment to a just resolution, but through a temporary and transactional alignment of interests between the United States, regional powers, and the primary combatants. The dealmakers secured a pause that served their immediate political, economic, and strategic needs, but they left the fundamental drivers of the conflict—security, governance, and sovereignty—unresolved. Without a genuine international commitment to confront these core dilemmas, the accord risks being remembered not as the dawn of an enduring peace, but as yet another fleeting truce in the conflict's long and tragic history.
Get the full report here
This analysis is based on a comprehensive review of the provided source materials. Subscribers to FreshNews.Cloud have access to the complete, annotated list of sources for this investigative report. Subscribe today for deeper insights.
Google Sites
Report abuse