In March 1996, amid the backdrop of the severe wave of terror attacks that the Hamas organization led against Israel, an international conference on combating terrorism convened in Sharm el-Sheikh, whose main sponsors were President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Shimon Peres.
However, beyond a pompous concluding statement that forcefully condemned the acts of terror and called for international cooperation to eradicate this violent and grave threat to Israel's security and regional stability, the wave of Hamas terror renewed with all its might and cruelty, sowing murder and destruction in Israel. Thus, the dream of the meeting's architects to cultivate a more reconciled and terror-free regional environment solely through rhetorical and declarative means vanished in fire and smoke.
Nearly three decades since that stinging and resounding failure, it brings up from the abyss of oblivion and forgetfulness the pathetic and naive attempt by Britain and France in 1928 to outlaw the use of war through a toothless document and enforcement mechanisms (the Kellogg-Briand Pact).
Sharm el-Sheikh once again became the focus of mediation efforts, designed to end the fighting in Gaza and ensure, with the help of tools and mechanisms to be established later on, that the same violent and extremist Hamas would be removed and excluded from the centers of control, influence, and the military infrastructure it established. And this time, it would be done effectively and long-term, unlike the failed initiative of 1996.
Indeed, while the 1996 Sharm el-Sheikh conference featured colorful scenery but yielded no results, this time the quiet contacts held in Sharm el-Sheikh produced a dramatic agreement for a ceasefire and the release of all the hostages (Phase A of President Donald Trump's settlement plan), which was signed on October 9, 2025, between Israel and Hamas, brokered by the US, Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar.
The uniqueness of the agreement (even though it does not include agreements regarding all the patterns and details of the implementation of the next phases of the president's plan), which succeeded in bringing about a cessation of fire after two years of a difficult campaign, is rooted in the conduct and behavioral patterns of the American super-mediator, who demonstrated creative and resolute leadership, out-of-the-box thinking beyond traditional diplomatic frameworks, and a readiness to make optimal use, at the right time, of all the levers of pressure and influence at his disposal.
While the diplomatic virtuoso, Henry Kissinger, preferred to obscure or blur the final goal of his mediation efforts, and instead proceed using a slow and gradual method toward realizing his settlement vision, the 47th president Donald Trump presented the goal of ending the war (and not just achieving a ceasefire agreement) as his central objective from the outset.
Furthermore, in his diplomatic activity in the arena, the 47th president created a completely new model of a super-mediator, overshadowing even the legendary Henry Kissinger in his level of sophistication and originality. While the former US Secretary of State acted not only as an effective mediator but also as a factor that rewarded the parties during the mediation he led on the way to the interim agreement he achieved between Israel and Egypt in September 1975, Donald Trump demonstrated his full prowess last week by not settling for traditional and direct mediation, but by granting a package of incentives and perks to the sub-mediators.
Pressures on Hamas
He did not, therefore, limit himself to promising compensation (or issuing warnings, implied or explicit) to the warring parties themselves. This was to strengthen the motivation of these sub-mediators (mainly Turkey and Qatar) to exert heavy pressures on Hamas so that it would agree to soften its rigid positions.
Regarding Turkey, the American compensation appears particularly far-reaching. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was promised the supply of F-35 aircraft, which he so coveted to receive, and he is slated to become a legitimate player in the agreement's implementation process.
Thus, the White House managed to create a two-layered web of heavy-weight levers of influence on Hamas. The cumulative weight of these levers made it hard for the terror organization, at the current time, to reject his plan. (Regarding Israel, Donald Trump directly applied these levers, but with a completely different dosage). This created the necessary infrastructure for the entire deal, in which carrots and sticks were integrated based on the business principle of "give and take" from Donald Trump's business background.
Hamas' dependence on Turkey
Although Qatar has long been known for dancing not only with the US but also with the devil, the fact that Doha had not succeeded in its mediation efforts until now (especially following the failed Israeli attack against senior Hamas officials in Qatar) is what led the president to his unprecedented decision to turn to Ankara, to shower Recep Tayyip Erdoğan with words of praise and flattery, and exploited the Hamas movement's great dependence on Turkey to turn it into a central executive contractor for his plan.
In this way, he also upgraded Turkey's security and political ties with Washington (in the hope that the price for strengthening Turkey and bringing it into the arena would not be too high for Israel, and that the American partner would provide Israel with appropriate security compensation for this).
Furthermore, in his activity as a super-mediator, Donald Trump revealed a deep understanding of the timing of his powerful entry onto the stage. The level of support for Israel around the world, and especially among the American public (including among the party's youth), has recently fallen to an unprecedented low (and also reflected on the status of the American superpower, Israel's loyal ally).
The fact that the Israeli action in Doha threatened to unravel the loose seams of the Abraham Accords and steer the Middle East down a path of chaos and instability, led the president to increase his activity. This was also in light of the growing criticism from wide sectors in Israeli society regarding what appeared to be a futile bogging down in the sands and alleys of Gaza.
Frustration in the White House
The growing frustration in the White House with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's promises of Hamas' total collapse, which did not materialize, and its sensitivity to the worsening condition of the hostages and the humanitarian distress in the strip, contributed to his decision that the time was ripe to throw his full weight into an increased effort to immediately bring about a cessation of the fighting (while also being ready to apply pressure on Israel not to resort to tactics of delay and postponement).
Thus, a window of opportunity was created by the president for the establishment of a ceasefire between Israel, isolated in the international arena and where growing signs of domestic fatigue and frustration are intensifying, and the terror organization, which has been significantly weakened and has lost most of its strongholds and centers of control. This was, of course, with the assistance of the sub-mediators, primarily Ankara, who mobilized for the mission of applying increased pressure on the terror organization.
If Europe was not mentioned at all in all the above, it is no coincidence. Apart from impractical plans that left no discernible mark, no trace remains of the unilateral and preposterous initiatives of French President (as of October 11) Emmanuel Macron, the European Union and the UN institutions. Is there a need for further proof of the leading status of the US as the sole superpower in the Donald Trump era, and the absolute marginality of Europe, which, apart from the background noise it created, contributed nothing to the advancement of the ceasefire?
And finally, the question of the Nobel Peace Prize, which was not awarded to the president on Friday. After the rumor already emerged from Oslo's halls that the win is contingent on a contribution to the establishment of a sustainable peace settlement, and not just the achievement of a ceasefire agreement, one can only hope and believe that if the process that Donald Trump created from scratch is indeed realized in practice and also leads to the expansion and upgrading of the Abraham Accords and the establishment of a new, more reconciled, and stable regional order, it will be difficult for the committee to object to his selection next year as the Nobel Peace Prize laureate.
