President Donald Trump held a summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, on July 7, 2024, where he declared a new era of peace in the Middle East. However, the absence of influential leaders at this event raises significant questions about the viability of his proposed peace initiative for Gaza. Key figures, including Benjamin Netanyahu, Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince, and Mohamed bin Zayed, the leader of the United Arab Emirates, were notably absent. Their participation is crucial for the success of Trump’s outlined 20-point peace plan.
The summit was marked by a striking lack of representation from those who will ultimately influence whether the peace plan progresses beyond its initial ceasefire-for-hostages phase. While the return of 20 Israeli hostages and the influx of humanitarian aid to Gaza were highlighted as significant achievements, the absence of these leaders indicates a troubling disconnect. Netanyahu, who remains adamant that the Gaza conflict is ongoing, chose not to attend the summit. Instead, he sent a subordinate, reflecting a lack of commitment to the proposed peace efforts.
The absence of Mohammed bin Salman and Mohamed bin Zayed is particularly noteworthy. Both leaders sent representatives rather than attending in person, signaling their dissatisfaction with the current peace framework. Without their financial backing, the reconstruction of Gaza faces substantial hurdles. Their participation is essential, as they are expected to spearhead an international force to restore order in the West Bank and support reconstruction efforts.
The summit also lacked a visible Palestinian presence. While Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority, was in attendance, he did not share the stage with Trump. This omission underscores the challenges in engaging Palestinian voices in the peace process. Moreover, the role of King Abdullah of Jordan, who was present but received little acknowledgment from Trump, is vital for any future developments in the West Bank.
Trump’s declaration of peace after “3,000 years” drew skepticism, particularly given the evident divisions among key stakeholders. His success in persuading Netanyahu to accept a ceasefire is commendable, yet the lack of participation from influential leaders raises doubts about the plan’s future. As Trump stated, “I am the only one that matters,” but the reality is that a sustainable peace process requires collaboration and input from a wider array of leaders.
The statement issued after the summit, titled “The Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity,” lacked concrete details and was filled with vague promises of dignity for all. According to reports from Israeli media, Netanyahu hesitated to appear alongside Abbas, insisting that the Palestinian Authority should not have a role in peace negotiations. Trump’s personal invitation to Netanyahu further complicated matters, as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan indicated he would withdraw if Netanyahu attended due to his criticism of the Israeli military’s actions in Gaza.
The dissatisfaction from Saudi Arabia and the UAE stems from alterations made to the initial 21-point plan, which Trump had previously discussed with them. After last-minute changes influenced by Israeli interests, the revised plan lacks clarity regarding Gaza’s future and avoids addressing the aspirations for a Palestinian state.
Trump’s team, led by real estate developer Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, proposes a governance model for Gaza that involves Palestinian technocrats under an international “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump. However, the criteria for selecting these technocrats remain undefined, complicating the plan’s implementation. The Israeli government’s strategy in Gaza may prioritize appointing compliant figures lacking legitimacy in their communities, reminiscent of past failed initiatives in the West Bank.
With no indication of a shift in Netanyahu’s stance toward the Palestinian Authority, and absent signals from the White House regarding the inclusion of Palestinian civil society in the peace discussions, it is challenging to see how Saudi leadership will support the current framework. Both Saudi Arabia and the UAE have previously expressed opposition to the annexation of the West Bank, a course of action currently being pursued by far-right elements within Netanyahu’s administration.
The absence of crucial leaders at the summit serves as a reminder that the proposed 20-point plan requires reevaluation. Active participation from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Turkey is essential to exert pressure on Hamas for disarmament and to facilitate subsequent negotiations. Their absence highlights the necessity of engaging Palestinian civil society genuinely in the process, which is fundamental to fostering hope for the future.
Neither Saudi Arabia nor the UAE, having witnessed the cycle of destruction in Gaza, is inclined to invest in reconstruction efforts that may be obliterated in future conflicts. They are also reluctant to support Trump’s vision of extending the Abraham Accords to include Saudi recognition of Israel if it entails endorsing a prolonged Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Currently, the 20-point plan and Trump’s performance in Egypt suggest an inclination toward a superficial approach to peace, reminiscent of past failed initiatives. The real progress achieved lies in the ceasefire-for-hostages deal, but as Trump declared in Egypt, he cannot “do it alone.” A more comprehensive strategy, inclusive of all key stakeholders, is essential for moving forward with any peace initiative in the region.