Last week was a watershed: the Gaza Peace Summit in Sharm el-Sheikh and the American president’s address to the Knesset will remain etched in the memory of both supporters and opponents alike. While it is too soon to tell whether President Trump’s effort will succeed, the objectives that have already been achieved amount to a turning point. However, this positive momentum, as well as the international consensus that has accompanied it, conceals the serious challenges the region is about to confront. The complexity of its conflicts, foremost among them the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, suggests that a resumption of hostilities is the only realistic alternative.
This plan and the fanfare could be said to embody the form and nature of political life in the twenty-first century. Trump should be judged by his actions, not his words, but he seems to be pushing for comprehensive security arrangements that change the face of the region. It would be wise to seize this opportunity to build a more stable Middle East, and it would be reckless, even insane, to try to overlook recent developments and resume the conflict through the framework of religious Zionism and political Islam.
Beyond the technical details, what matters most is pulling the plug on the machine of death and destruction in Gaza, preventing Israel from going through with its plans for forced displacement and annexation (whether in the Strip or the West Bank), putting an end to the era of militias and non-state actors, and reclaiming Palestine and its cause from Iran and its allies- bringing the Palestinian question back into the Arab and international fold to ensure comprehensive peace process in the region. That is the essence of the second phase of the twenty-point plan.
The events of the past two years have turned the region on its head. In addition to the immense toll that the fighting has taken, it has also weakened Iran and undermined its influence in the Levant: the Assad regime fell, Hezbollah has been crippled, and Iran’s nuclear program has taken a hit. Militant political Islam, both Sunni and Shiite, has been battered. These sweeping shifts paved the way for Trump’s plan and the unprecedented international consensus surrounding it.
Nonetheless, one cannot ignore the obstacles and bitter lessons that have accumulated over the past seven tragic decades of Palestinian history. Benjamin Netanyahu’s absence from the conference was not a coincidence. It reflects the domestic crisis currently brewing in Israel, which rejects any path to peace that would constrain extremism and settlement expansion. His absence also reflects his awareness of the world’s rage.
However, Netanyahu is not the only one to blame for the impasse. The mistakes of the Arabs and Palestinians have also undermined the cause, squandered successive opportunities to build a unified, modern Palestinian state. From their rejection of the 1947 Partition Plan, to Arab and Palestinian divisions and Hamas’s seizure of Gaza in 2007, and finally the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation, which showed the extent of Palestinian forces’ political blindness. The devastating Israeli response that almost wiped out what remained of the cause. That is, the cause has continuously been bleeding out because of Israeli extremism, Palestinian division, and Arab impotence.
What next?
The region’s future will probably not be shaped by Iran and its projects. Israel is unlikely to dominate either. Despite Israel’s military superiority, Israel’s political and demographic limitations mean that it cannot impose full control. The broad trajectory in the region suggests that the center of gravity is gradually shifting toward the Gulf states, Türkiye, and perhaps Egypt, if the latter can overcome its economic crises and reinforce domestic stability. For its part, the United States remains the driving force shaping the region.
Still, the road to peace remains laden with obstacles. First, we have the volatility in Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. In Gaza, a quiet civil war seems to be brewing as the rift between Hamas and the clans grows. Hamas has redeployed its security apparatus and launched campaigns against its rivals. Ironically, Hamas maintaining control serves Netanyahu’s interests. A dynamic of “mutual dependence” has shaped the politics on both sides of the conflict since 1996: the persistence of Hamas’s control prevents the Palestinian Authority’s return to the Strip, keeping the Palestinians divided and giving Israel a pretext to freeze political processes. The same logic applies to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
As for Lebanon and Syria, because of their complex domestic challenges, neither was present in the Sharm el-Sheikh conference or the previous meeting in New York. Despite the Arab outreach and international support, Syria has yet to reach the domestic settlements needed for its integration into the peace process. Lebanon, for its part, remains hostage to political crises and Hezbollah’s influence, which has left the state hesitant and incapable of joining the path of regional reconciliation.
Meanwhile, the progress achieved on the peace track raises questions about possible Syrian-Lebanese cooperation in pursuit of peace amid shifting regional dynamics and the collapse of the “Axis of Resistance.” After losing its influence in the Levant, Iran’s isolation also raises questions about whether it will accept this new reality or seek to sabotage efforts to ensure peace through proxy wars. Accordingly, the emerging regional formula rests on a delicate balance between an emerging peace and unresolved tensions.
Trump’s plan has opened the door to change. It is a turning point in international relations and conflict-resolution in the region. The plan is founded on coordinated global action, marginalizing unilateral efforts. Excessive enthusiasm for the plan is mistaken, and underestimating it is a sin. Let us recall Antonio Gramsci’s words: “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.
