Exhaustion leveraged

The Gaza peace declaration signed in Sharm el-Sheikh has the unmistakable air of theatre ~ grand, emotional, and designed for the cameras. Yet, beneath the pageantry lies the first credible truce in two years of relentless conflict, a deal that may finally give both Israelis and Palestinians a brief pause from grief. Whether it can evolve into something more enduring depends on what follows once the spotlight dims.

The images were meant to linger. The American President, smiling broadly at every cue, flanked by regional leaders, promising a “golden age for the Middle East.” The exchange of hostages and prisoners, the embrace between adversaries, and the talk of “a new and beautiful day” all conveyed a sense of finality. But history counsels caution. Every West Asia peace summit has begun with handshakes and declarations of hope, only to be undone by the realities of mistrust, politics, and power.

Advertisement

The choreography of diplomacy often conceals its contradictions. Every gesture, every handshake is layered with competing ambitions. In this peace show, symbolism can both inspire and deceive, offering a glimpse of hope even as deeper uncertainties remain unresolved beneath the surface. This time, the calculation is different. The war in Gaza had reached a point where neither side could claim victory, and the humanitarian toll was intolerable even to Israel’s allies. The American intervention, equal parts personal diplomacy and political instinct, leveraged exhaustion into opportunity. The release of the last living hostages and the freeing of thousands of Palestinian detainees mark tangible gains, however asymmetric. For now, both sides have something to show their people. But the structure of peace is more complex than the spectacle of peace.

The Palestinian Authority’s future role in Gaza remains uncertain, and the question of who governs the enclave once rebuilding begins will test the strength of the deal. For Israel, this is as much a domestic reckoning as a diplomatic one. Some in its political establishment believe the truce concedes too much; others see it as a necessary step to restore international legitimacy. For US President Donald Trump, the Sharm el-Sheikh summit fits neatly into his broader narrative, that dealmaking, not idealism, delivers results. The “board of peace” he proposes to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction mirrors his earlier attempts to fuse business logic with diplomacy.

It is an approach that thrives on momentum and personality but can falter when faced with the slow, grinding realities of governance. Still, symbolism matters. A ceasefire that holds long enough to begin rebuilding could reshape regional dynamics and restore a measure of stability to a conflict that has defied all previous formulas. Yet if the truce collapses under the weight of old grievances and unmet promises, this too will become another fleeting chapter of peace deferred. For now, the guns are silent, the flags are raised, and the speeches are done. What remains is the harder, quieter work ~ turning applause into permanence, and theatre into peace.