Just recall the period before Oct. 7. The name “Hamas” was barely mentioned, and even the Palestinians who were killed made it into news bulletins only occasionally. Arab states were lining up to normalize relations with Israel. The world had no real concern for Palestine; most people were barely even aware of it.
Today, however, the president of the United States himself is coming in person to formally record an agreement between Hamas and Israel. There seems to be virtually no Western European leader absent. If we include representatives from the Gulf countries and the heads of numerous international institutions, more than 30 leaders have gathered in Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh for a single purpose.
The “International Peace Summit” does not signal a period in which the conflict has shifted from the battlefield to the negotiating table, but rather an era in which the negotiating table is attempting to reshape the battlefield. For this reason, we must approach this summit with cautious optimism, wondering whether the word “peace” is once again a convenient play on language employed by the West.
At least for now, instead of naively interpreting this scene as a “search for peace in the Middle East,” we should regard it as the “foundational confrontation of a new order.” We can say that those who sincerely want to end the genocide, those who want to end it in a controlled manner for their own interests, and those who want to design the post-genocide picture, all of them are at the same summit.
The prolonged booing that erupted when U.S. President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff mentioned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s name during his speech in Tel Aviv not only reflects Israel’s internal fault lines but also shows that Washington is now forced to face the reality of Netanyahu without diplomatic wrapping. The presence of Trump's daughter, Ivanka Trump, and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, behind him is not merely symbolic; it implies that the first regional concept after the Al-Aqsa Flood is being shaped through the Trumpist school.
Within this framework, Türkiye’s position is notably different. The fact that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was mentioned first in the American representative’s list of thanks confirms that Ankara is carrying the file not merely through mediation but through its capacity to produce outcomes. Likewise, the emir of Qatar and the president of Egypt have been registered as essential pillars of this architecture.
The concrete outcome of this gathering, which appears to be a diplomatic showcase, will likely be the establishment of a guarantor mechanism. According to information reported by Agence France-Presse (AFP), the United States, Egypt, Qatar and Türkiye will sign a “Guarantorship Document” at the summit. This structure is being designed not only to oversee a cease-fire but also to cover prisoner exchanges, the safeguarding of humanitarian aid, temporary governance formulas, and postwar reconstruction. It is anticipated that the future of actors not officially at the table (Israel, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority) will also be shaped through the influence of these four countries. Türkiye, being a party to this document, means it is being formally recognized as one of the founding actors of the post-Oct. 7 order.
Another critical heading regarding the summit is Iran. They express gratitude for the invitation but say they will not appear in the same frame with counterparts who impose sanctions or use threatening language toward Iran. Even if it does not sit at a table it cannot dominate, Iran is trying to position itself behind the scenes so as not to lose discursive primacy.
So, what should be expected from this summit? We need to see this: this meeting is not a summit of outcomes, but one of geopolitical weight-testing. Who will have a say on the ground, who will take roles in prisoner exchanges, cease-fire arrangements, temporary governance, humanitarian corridors and security mechanisms, these will take shape. The Türkiye-Qatar-Egypt trio is currently in the position of “actors who make others talk rather than being the ones talking.” Since the U.S. has formally acknowledged this picture, it becomes inevitable for the Russia-Iran axis on the ground to update its cards. The summit’s communique may be a diplomatic text, but the real message will be read from bilateral contacts and the photographs served to the public.
In my view, realistic expectations should be as follows: this summit will not bring a lasting solution to the table, but it will determine where the table will be set and with whom. This meeting, held without Israel, is probing the ground for the post-Oct. 7 period. The Palestinian resistance may not be at the table, but it is still decisive on the ground. Iran may not be inside, but its spirit is there. The U.S. is the moderator, but not the sole boss. Europe is on display, yet internally divided. And Türkiye is not situated between two blocs; it is positioned as one of the founding pillars of the table. In such a picture, the new power architecture is discussed before peace. Expectations should focus not on a “solution” but on the “redrawing of the game’s boundaries.”
