Summit that staunched bloodshed in West Asia

The legacy of the Sharm el-Sheikh summit is ambiguous. It did not forge a path to peace, but has transformed a conflict into a managed, yet fundamentally unresolved, political standoff

- Ausaf Sayeed

The Sharm el-Sheikh summit on Monday represents a watershed in Middle East diplomacy, but its legacy is profoundly ambiguous. Co-chaired by the US and Egypt, the gathering of world leaders succeeded in brokering an end to a devastating two-year war in Gaza, securing a ceasefire, the release of all hostages and prisoners, and an unprecedented international commitment to reconstruction and oversight.

Yet, beneath the celebratory atmosphere lies a framework that is both a radical diplomatic innovation and a profoundly fragile construct. The summit did not forge a path to peace; instead, it transformed a hot conflict into a managed, yet fundamentally unresolved, political standoff. The architecture of this imposed peace was a deliberate departure from decades of failed negotiations. It embraced high-stakes political theatre, exemplified by President Donald ‘Trump's dramatic address to the Israeli Knesset, declaring the war “over” before the deal was signed. This strategy of creating political reality and momentum by weaponising public pronouncement, forcing both Israel and Hamas into a corner, where accepting the internationally-backed framework was less costly than being cast as the sole spoilers of peace.

The summit's most striking feature was the calculated exclusion of Israel and Hamas, the principal adversaries, from the final stage of negotiations. By empowering a quartet of guarantors — the US, Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey —the process averted the all-too-familiar scenario in which either party could sabotage progress by refusing to compromise.