Sharm El-Sheikh Summit: Diplomacy as Spectacle, Justice as Casualty

In October 2025, the Egyptian resort town of Sharm El-Sheikh hosted a high-profile summit co-chaired by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and U.S. President Donald Trump. Marketed as a breakthrough for peace, the summit brought together over 20 world leaders to witness the signing of a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas. But beneath the polished optics and diplomatic fanfare, the event exposed the contradictions of modern statecraft—where performance often replaces accountability, and peace is repackaged without justice.

The Missing Players: A Ceasefire Without Consent

While the agreement was formally signed by Israeli and Palestinian representatives, neither Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor Hamas leadership attended the summit in person. Hamas, the dominant political and military force in Gaza, was notably absent from the stage, despite reports of indirect involvement through backchannel negotiations. This absence raised serious questions about the legitimacy and durability of the agreement. Can peace be brokered without the full participation of those most affected?

Trump’s Spotlight and the Politics of Provocation

President Trump delivered three major speeches during the summit and surrounding events—including one at the Israeli Knesset. His remarks were a mix of self-congratulation, geopolitical bravado, and controversial praise. He lauded Netanyahu—who faces war crimes charges at the ICC—and even urged Israeli President Isaac Herzog to pardon him for domestic corruption allegations.

In his summit address, Trump encouraged more Arab states to join the Abraham Accords, despite widespread regional opposition. He congratulated Netanyahu for choosing “victory” over prolonged warfare, stating:

“If you would have gone on for three, four more years – keep fighting, fighting, fighting – it was getting bad. It was getting heated… Bibi, you’re going to be remembered for this far more than if you kept this thing going, going, going – kill, kill, kill.”

He also recounted how Netanyahu frequently requested advanced weaponry:

“We make the best weapons in the world… Bibi would call me so many times – ‘Can you get me this weapon, that weapon?’ Some of them, I never heard of.”

These comments, while framed as diplomatic anecdotes, underscored the depth of U.S. military support for Israel—support that has helped turn much of Gaza into rubble. Over the past two years, Washington has provided more than $21 billion in aid to its Middle East ally.

Washington’s War, Tel Aviv’s Guns

The war on Gaza, though executed by Israeli forces, bore the unmistakable fingerprints of American strategy. The U.S. supplied weapons, intelligence, and diplomatic cover, including repeated vetoes at the UN Security Council that blocked ceasefire resolutions. Trump’s peace roadmap, unveiled earlier in the year, demanded the disarmament of Palestinian resistance and prioritized Israeli security guarantees—effectively sidelining Palestinian sovereignty.

Humanitarian Rhetoric vs. Structural Violence

“A new and beautiful day is rising and now the rebuilding begins,” Trump declared, praising regional leaders for helping cement the truce. But his optimism clashed with the grim reality on the ground. Gaza remains devastated—its infrastructure shattered, its population displaced, and its future uncertain.

The summit’s humanitarian language—“restoring dignity,” “rebuilding Gaza,” “ensuring stability”—rang hollow. UN agencies were present, but their role was largely logistical. The political framing remained in the hands of those who had either enabled or ignored the violence.

Regional Rejection: The Audience Isn’t Buying It

Across the Arab world, reactions to the summit ranged from skepticism to outright rejection. Many saw it as a theatrical attempt to whitewash a war that had already claimed thousands of lives. The Palestinian cause, long treated as a bargaining chip in regional politics, was once again reduced to a backdrop for international posturing.