Can a summit in Egypt truly bring peace to Gaza? It’s a question that’s been on everyone’s mind as U.S. President Donald Trump and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi prepare to co-host a high-stakes gathering of over 20 world leaders in Sharm El Sheikh. But here’s where it gets controversial: while the summit aims to end the war in Gaza, foster stability in the Middle East, and usher in a new era of regional security, key players are notably absent. And this is the part most people miss: the absence of Israeli officials, Hamas representatives, and Iranian leaders could either make or break the summit’s ambitions.
Trump, fresh from a visit to Israel where he addressed the Knesset and met with families of hostages, is riding a wave of optimism, boldly declaring to reporters, ‘The war is over.’ Yet, his 20-point peace plan still leaves critical questions unanswered: How will Gaza be governed post-conflict? What will become of Hamas? These uncertainties loom large as leaders gather to discuss the next steps.
Al-Sisi, whose country has been pivotal in brokering the ceasefire and hostage release deal, sees the summit as a ‘victory lap’ for Trump, according to sources. But is it enough to ensure lasting peace? Qatar’s Emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, pushed hard to involve Trump in the peace process, believing his presence could guarantee success. Yet, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, whose role in Gaza remains uncertain due to Netanyahu’s rejection, is attending—a move that could spark further debate.
The guest list is impressive, featuring leaders like France’s Emmanuel Macron, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the UK’s Keir Starmer, and UN Secretary-General António Guterres. Each brings unique perspectives and stakes in the region’s future. But the absence of Israel and Hamas raises questions: Can peace be negotiated without their direct involvement? And what does Iran’s refusal to attend—citing ongoing tensions with the U.S.—mean for regional stability?
Here’s the bold part: Some argue that excluding these key players undermines the summit’s legitimacy, while others believe it’s a necessary step to avoid deadlock. What do you think? Is this summit a genuine step toward peace, or just another diplomatic photo-op? Let’s discuss in the comments—your voice matters in this complex conversation.
