Sharm el-Sheikh was never going to be a fairy-tale ending to a century-old conflict.
The agreement reached this week in the Egyptian resort — calling for a cessation of hostilities, a phased Israeli withdrawal from parts of Gaza and a hostage-prisoner exchange — has been met with cautious relief around the world. After nearly two years of unimaginable suffering in Gaza, any pause that allows civilians to breathe and humanitarian aid to flow is welcome. But from Pakistan’s perspective — a country that has consistently supported the Palestinian struggle for self-determination — it is essential to ask a harder question: Will the Sharm el-Sheikh accord actually guarantee Palestinian sovereignty? Or will it, like previous peace efforts, become another stage-managed pause before a return to oppression? To answer that, it helps to recall history. The 1978 Camp David Accords produced a peace between Egypt and Israel that ended decades of state-level war. But that deal never deli-vered liberation for the Palestinians. Instead, it pushed their national cause to the margins, reducing it to a regional issue rather than the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Camp David succeeded in exchanging land for peace — but only for Egypt. For the Palestinians, it offered no statehood, no sovereignty and no end to occupation.
Fifteen years later, the 1993 Oslo Accords arrived with unprecedented hope. The world was told that Oslo would pave the way for an independent Palestinian state. Yet, three decades later, Oslo stands as a cautionary tale. What was meant to be an interim framework became a trap of perpetual transition. Israel consolidated control through settlements and security arrangements while Palestinian governance was fragmented and weakened. Key issues — Jerusalem, refugees and borders — were conveniently deferred. Oslo institutionalized inequality rather than dismantling it. The Sharm el-Sheikh agreement risks following the same script. Its immediate provisions — a ceasefire, humanitarian access and international oversight — are necessary first steps but they are not a political solution. The most critical questions remain unanswered: Who will govern Gaza during the transition? What guarantees exist for the end of Israeli occupation? How will borders, movement and reconstruction be managed? And what of the West Bank and East Jerusalem — still under occupation, still cut off from the dream of statehood? Without clarity on these points, the Sharm el-Sheikh deal could easily become just another temporary ceasefire — a way to cool tempers while leaving the underlying injustice intact. From Islamabad’s standpoint, the moral and strategic stakes are clear. Morally, Pakistan has stood by Palestine since 1948, supporting its right to full statehood and opposing any settlement that legitimizes occupation. Strategically, Pakistan and much of the Muslim world understand that the Palestinian issue is not just about one strip of land — it’s about the credibility of international law, the moral authority of the global order and the stability of the broader Middle East. A ceasefire that stops the killing but denies sovereignty is not peace — it’s managed injustice.
For Sharm el-Sheikh to be more than another diplomatic interlude, it must contain enforceable guarantees. First, the ceasefire must come with a clear, binding roadmap for Gaza’s political transition — one that ensures civilian administration, protects humanitarian corridors and prevents indefinite Israeli military presence. Second, the international community must establish verifiable timelines for Israeli with-drawal and settlement rollback, particularly in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The old habit of postponing “final status” issues must end.
Third, security arrangements must not morph into mechanisms of control. The disarmament of Palestinian factions can’t become an excuse for perpetual surveillance and occupation. Fourth, a credible enforcement framework is crucial. The United States, the European Union and regional guarantors like Egypt and Qatar must move beyond mediation to accountability — linking aid, reconstruction funds and diplomatic recognition to compliance. Critics may argue that such guarantees are idealistic given Israel’s military dominance and America’s domestic political constraints. But history shows that diplomacy without en-forcement is a recipe for failure. Camp David and Oslo both lacked credible enforcement and both produced peace for some but not justice for Palestinians.
For Pakistan, supporting humanitarian relief while pressing for structural guarantees is the balanced path forward. Pakistan can use its diplomatic weight within the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and at the United Nations to ensure that the Sharm el-Sheikh process doesn’t simply freeze the status quo under a new name. True peace requires dismantling occupation, not dressing it up in temporary truces.
Ultimately, the question is not whether Sharm el-Sheikh will stop the war — it might, for now — but whether it will create conditions for lasting freedom. Peace without sovereignty is submission. Stability without justice is a mirage.
If the world treats Sharm el-Sheikh as the beginning of a real roadmap toward Palestinian independence — with measurable steps, monitored timelines and international enforce-ment — it could finally change the trajectory of this conflict. But if it becomes another photo-op in the desert, another round of “peace without justice,” then the old cycle of violence, despair and betrayal will continue. For Pakistan and for every nation that still believes in the right of peoples to live free, the test of Sharm el-Sheikh is simple: does it end occupation or just manage it? Only one of those paths leads to peace.
—The writer is author of several books based in Islamabad.
