The Egypt Summit and the Middle East's search for a new balance

Recent developments in the Middle East are laying the groundwork for a reshaping of power balances and alliances in the region. As a result of the unconditional support the US has provided to Israel over the last two years, there has been massive destruction in Gaza, thousands of civilians have lost their lives, and a significant portion of the population has been displaced. 

The peace summit hosted by Egypt on October 13 stood out as an important step toward ending the conflicts. Israeli officials, Hamas representatives, and Iranian officials—despite being invited—did not attend the summit, while Russia was not invited. Arab countries generally limited themselves to observing the process; this was seen as a continuation of their inability to present a unified stance on the Palestinian issue. European states, on the other hand, turned the summit into an opportunity to increase their diplomatic contacts.

CAN THE ABRAHAM ACCORDS MAKE THE PALESTINIAN ISSUE BE FORGOTTEN?

Although the Egypt Summit was an important diplomatic step in terms of efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it also carries the potential to revive the spirit of the Abraham Accords. This raises the question: "Is the Palestinian issue being pushed to the background?" It is evident that a process of change in the Middle East will be inevitable. Because for Trump, the Abraham Accords are one of the fundamental elements of a long-term Middle East project. Provided, of course, that the peace is sustainable...

The permanence of the peace process remains uncertain. Indeed, in the past, even while conflicts in Gaza were ongoing, some Arab states signed the Abraham Accords and did not sever their relations with Israel. However, the situation today shows some differences. The fact that Arab public opinion approaches the Palestinian issue with more emotion and sensitivity has made the course and results of this summit decisive. 

Although the Abraham Accords ostensibly aim for peace, in the long term, they could tip regional power balances in favor of Israel and open the door to new divisions in the Arab world. The absence of the phrase "two-state solution" in the texts signed at the summit can be interpreted as an indicator of the goal to maintain US influence in the Middle East, guarantee Israel's security, and encourage the normalization of relations between Arab countries and Israel through the "Abraham Accords."  

Arab countries took part in this agreement to balance the Iranian threat. However, the recent attacks on Iran and developments within the country, which have led to a decrease in the Iranian threat, could also lead to a weakening of participation in these alliances.

The fundamental problem of the Arab world is its inability to develop a common political stance against the fact that the West, led by the US, still views them as a "sphere of influence." Their inability to display a common attitude on the Palestinian issue clearly reveals the lack of a joint security strategy and diplomatic vision among Arab countries.

LEADERSHIP RACE IN THE ARAB WORLD HEATS UP AGAIN 

The struggle for regional leadership is taking place particularly between Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Arab leaders, while taking steps toward normalization with Israel to protect their own regimes, are simultaneously facing the sensitivities of their people regarding Palestine. This tension is causing, in particular, younger Arab generations to show intense reactions to what is happening in Gaza. For this reason, Saudi Arabia has been forced to emphasize that normalization with Israel can only take place on the basis of a "two-state solution." 

In the leadership competition between Egypt and Saudi Arabia, it is observed that Saudi Arabia is pursuing a more active diplomacy, while Egypt is trying to maintain its effectiveness in the region by highlighting its role as a peace envoy. Both countries are struggling to strengthen their "leadership" position in the Arab world.

In international relations, regional leadership is not limited to mediation alone. Possessing a strong military, strategic resources, a defense industry, and a political vision; as well as being able to effectively manage population, economic, and diplomatic power, forms the foundation of this status. The Egypt Summit can be evaluated as a turning point that redefines these elements.

Conclusion

The Egypt Summit has turned into a diplomatic stage where power balances in the Middle East are redefined, rather than a regional peace initiative. The expansion of the Abraham Accords appears to be a strategy aimed at freezing the Palestinian issue rather than solving it. In this process, while Egypt gains prestige through diplomatic mediation, Saudi Arabia is moving to the forefront of the regional leadership race by using its economic and political tools.

In conclusion, the Egypt Summit has become a symbol of a silent competition over who will be the leader in the Middle East, beyond just a ceasefire.