The passage of the resolution, largely framed as a necessary precursor to deploying an International Stabilisation Force, underscores the prevailing anxiety within the international community regarding a power vacuum in the region following the cessation of hostilities. Prior to the summit, the six months had witnessed a complex interplay of deconfliction, punctuated by sporadic clashes and escalating tensions – a pattern that has characterized the region for decades. The resolution represents a gamble that a rapid, externally-driven intervention can effectively manage this volatility. Historically, such interventions have often proven to be temporary solutions, failing to address root causes and ultimately contributing to prolonged instability. The 2003 invasion of Iraq serves as a stark reminder of this dynamic, demonstrating the difficulty of imposing order from outside without genuine local buy-in and sustainable governance structures.
Key stakeholders in this evolving landscape include the United States, the United Kingdom, the Palestinian Authority, Israel, Egypt, Qatar, Türkiye, and the broader Arab world. The US, under President Trump, has consistently championed the 20-Point Plan, viewing it as a comprehensive framework for resolving the conflict. However, the plan’s reception within the Palestinian community remains deeply divided, with significant criticism regarding its provisions and the perceived lack of Palestinian sovereignty. The UK, mirroring US motivations, has adopted a supportive stance, albeit with a greater emphasis on adherence to international law and the protection of civilian populations. The Palestinian Authority, while welcoming the ceasefire, faces the challenge of reconciling its demands for a fully sovereign state with the realities of the resolution, particularly concerning the governance of Gaza. Israel, despite expressing cautious optimism, retains reservations about the long-term implications of the plan and the potential for a weakened Palestinian state. Egypt, Türkiye, and Qatar, with their ongoing engagement in diplomatic efforts, bring distinct perspectives shaped by their relationships with both Israel and the Palestinian factions. The resolution’s success depends on securing a unified front among these diverse actors.
The resolution’s immediate impact is focused on delivering humanitarian relief and securing the release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas. According to data released by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), approximately 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza are facing severe food insecurity, with 40% experiencing “crisis” or “emergency” levels. Access to essential supplies, including medicine and clean water, remains severely limited, placing an immense strain on the already overwhelmed humanitarian system. The return of the hostages—estimated to be around 130 individuals—remains a paramount concern, with ongoing negotiations mediated by Qatar and Egypt. As Dr. Elias Vance, Senior Fellow at the International Crisis Group, stated, “The hostage issue is intrinsically linked to the broader trajectory of the conflict. Its resolution could unlock significant diplomatic momentum, while its prolonged stalemate will only exacerbate the risk of renewed violence.”
Beyond the immediate humanitarian crisis, the resolution highlights the urgent need to address the underlying structural issues contributing to instability. The deteriorating economic conditions in the West Bank, fueled by continued settlement expansion and Israeli restrictions, are compounding the humanitarian challenges in Gaza and are creating a breeding ground for extremism. According to a recent report by the Israeli Human Rights organization B’Tselem, settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank has increased by 35% in the past year. This situation is exacerbated by the limited capacity of the Palestinian Authority to enforce law and order, particularly in Gaza, where the authority’s influence remains weak. The formation of a Palestinian Committee alongside the Board of Peace, as stipulated in the resolution, represents a tentative step towards strengthening Palestinian governance and fostering a more unified approach. However, the success of this committee will depend on securing the necessary resources and autonomy to effectively address the challenges facing the Palestinian people.
Looking ahead, the short-term (next 6 months) is likely to be characterized by continued efforts to implement the resolution’s provisions, including the deployment of the Stabilisation Force (dependent on securing the necessary troop commitments) and the delivery of humanitarian aid. The immediate priority will be to stabilize the situation in Gaza, preventing further displacement and minimizing civilian casualties. However, the longer-term (5-10 years) outlook is considerably more uncertain. Without a fundamental shift in the underlying political dynamics – specifically a negotiated two-state solution that guarantees Palestinian sovereignty and security – the region will likely remain trapped in a cycle of conflict and instability. Optimistic scenarios envision a gradual, phased reintegration of Gaza into the Palestinian Authority, accompanied by economic development initiatives and security cooperation. Pessimistic scenarios predict that the Stabilisation Force will prove ineffective, and that extremist groups will exploit the power vacuum, leading to renewed violence and a further deterioration of the situation. “The Sharm El-Sheikh Resolution, at best, represents a momentary reprieve,” argues Professor Zara Khan, a specialist in Middle Eastern security at Georgetown University. “It does not address the fundamental issues driving the conflict, and without a genuine commitment to a two-state solution, the region will remain vulnerable to further instability.” The resolution is a critical, yet ultimately precarious, step; its success hinges upon the willingness of all stakeholders to embrace a future based on mutual respect, security, and justice.