Calm Before the Storm? A Fragile Deal Precedes a Major War

NYN | Reports and Analyses 

On Monday, Egypt’s Sharm El-Sheikh resort witnessed the signing of a final ceasefire agreement for the Gaza Strip, involving leaders from the United States, Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey. The move was described as the culmination of a long path of regional and international mediation and pressure.

However, the most striking aspect of the agreement is that the two main parties to the conflict — Israel and the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas — were not present in the hall where the signing ceremony took place. This has prompted many to ask: Who signed with whom? And who granted legitimacy to a peace deal without the actual stakeholders present?

This absence raises serious questions about the essence and real content of the agreement, especially since — based on field indicators — the declared ceasefire appears more like a temporary arrangement aimed at reviving and rehabilitating Israel’s image after its genocidal crimes against Palestinian civilians, rather than a balanced deal that would bring an end to the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.

While official summit photos projected a celebratory and diplomatic atmosphere, the reality behind the scenes remains one of a besieged population, devastated cities, and unhealed wounds.

Observers argue that the United States and its allies behind the deal are attempting to buy time through this temporary truce, while broader political and security files are arranged in the region to serve American and Israeli interests.

The agreement lacks binding guarantees to prevent Israel from resuming its military operations, and it includes no clear international monitoring mechanism to ensure compliance — making its collapse a real possibility at any moment.

In contrast, the absence of Russia and China — two global powers with veto rights at the UN Security Council — stands out as a critical flaw in the structure of international guarantees. The absence of these powers, which have consistently emphasized the need for balance in conflict resolution, undermines the credibility of the deal and strips it of the deterrent shield needed to stop Israeli violations.

Some analysts suggest that the current agreement resembles more of a “political resuscitation phase” designed to relieve pressure on Israel after the widespread public outrage in several countries — especially in Europe — rather than a genuine peace deal that ends the war or guarantees it won’t be repeated.

The understandings reached in Sharm El-Sheikh appear fragile, shaped more by external pressures and battlefield calculations than by a sincere internal will from the conflicting parties (occupier vs. resistance).

And while the mediators celebrate their diplomatic achievement, the situation on the ground in Gaza remains volatile and could ignite again at any moment — unless this ceasefire is accompanied by a genuine political process that addresses the root causes of the crisis: ending the occupation, lifting the blockade, and securing the Palestinian people’s legitimate rights to freedom and independence.