The unexpected signing of the Gaza Peace Agreement on October 13, 2025, brokered by a quartet – U.S. President Donald J. Trump, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan – has injected a significant, and somewhat jarring, element into the geopolitical landscape of Southeast Asia. Cambodia’s swift and unequivocal endorsement of the accord raises critical questions about the region’s alliances, its approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the broader trend of unconventional diplomacy dominating international relations.
The immediate context is a protracted stalemate. Decades of failed negotiations, punctuated by cycles of violence and the increasing fragmentation of the international consensus, have left the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a seemingly intractable problem. The failure of the United Nations Security Council to effectively address the situation, coupled with the rising influence of non-state actors, had created a vacuum filled by ad-hoc mediation efforts – mostly unsuccessful. The Gaza Accord represents a radical departure, leveraging the personal relationships and, arguably, the continuing geopolitical leverage of individuals like former U.S. President Trump, a tactic rarely seen on the global stage.
Historical precedent offers little guidance. The Camp David Accords of 1978, mediated by U.S. President Jimmy Carter, involved direct negotiations between Egypt and Israel – a fundamentally different model than this multi-lateral, arguably less transparent, process. The Oslo Accords, similarly, were predicated on a gradual, step-by-step approach, building trust between the parties. Cambodia’s decision, however, underscores a strategic calculation driven by regional dynamics. Cambodia has historically maintained close ties with both Israel and, more recently, with Turkey, reflecting a pragmatic approach to balancing competing interests. “Cambodia’s stance reflects a long-held belief in pragmatic diplomacy, prioritizing stability and security over ideological purity,” commented Dr. Anya Sharma, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Strategic Studies in Phnom Penh. “The key here is the recognition that sometimes, a ‘messy’ solution, delivered through unconventional channels, can be preferable to a prolonged and demonstrably failed process.”
Key stakeholders – beyond the immediate mediators – include the United States, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the State of Qatar, which has long been a key facilitator in regional conflict resolution. Turkey, under President Erdogan, has actively sought to reassert its influence in regional affairs, adding another layer of complexity. The Egyptian government, under President El-Sisi, has positioned itself as a crucial regional player, leveraging its strategic location to mediate and stabilize volatile situations. Data from the International Crisis Group indicates a surge in regional instability over the past six months, correlating with heightened tensions in the Southern Red Sea and the Levant, likely contributing to the impetus for this unorthodox agreement.
Cambodia’s statement specifically references support for the “two-state solution” and encourages adherence to “relevant UN resolutions and international law.” However, the specifics of the agreement – which remain largely undisclosed – are crucial. Transparency regarding the terms, including guarantees for Palestinian sovereignty, security arrangements, and the potential for a phased withdrawal of international forces, is paramount. “The success of this accord hinges on the credibility of the mediators and the willingness of all parties to commit to a genuine peace process,” warned Professor David Miller, a specialist in Middle Eastern politics at the Royal Cambodian Institute of Public Administration. “Without verifiable guarantees and robust monitoring mechanisms, the accord risks becoming another hollow promise.”
Short-term outcomes are difficult to predict. While the agreement has been welcomed by some within the Palestinian Authority, skepticism remains prevalent. Within the next six months, we can anticipate continued scrutiny from international observers and a gradual testing of the agreement’s terms. A significant factor will be the ability of the mediators to maintain leverage and prevent any party from attempting to unilaterally alter the terms. Long-term, the success of the Gaza Accord will depend on its ability to genuinely address the underlying issues – the occupation of Palestinian territories, the status of Jerusalem, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees – which have fueled decades of conflict. The potential impact on regional alliances is substantial; the agreement could solidify Turkey’s position as a key regional power, while simultaneously shifting the balance of influence within the Middle East. The pursuit of the two-state solution, though appearing optimistic, will continue to be a key geopolitical driver in the coming decade.