President Trump’s 20-point plan represents the last best chance to end the war in Gaza, return the hostages to their families, and relieve the suffering of Palestinian civilians in the territory. The devil, when it comes to more sustainable peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians alike, lies in the details notably absent from the Trump proposal. Those details are likely to be shaped by the regional guarantors of the agreement, under the broad parameters laid out in the proposal signed onto by Hamas and Israel. Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey will each approach this next phase and their role as guarantors with largely complementary, but nonetheless unique capabilities and objectives that will define the long-term prospects for effective reconstruction and governance in Gaza. As guarantors (alongside the US), these three countries will share responsibility for ensuring the ceasefire agreement is upheld by Israel and Hamas.
Egypt, the first Arab state to recognize the state of Israel, has been the key regional player historically in negotiations between Israel and Hamas, both because of its border with Gaza and its considerable influence over Palestinian factions there. Notably, Egypt has been the key arbiter of previous ceasefires, having helped broker cessations of hostilities in 2008, 2012, 2014, and 2021. As the gatekeeper of the Rafah crossing into Gaza, Egypt is in the unique position of controlling the primary access point for humanitarian assistance during and after conflicts. Egypt has also played a decisive role in coordinating among regional and international parties in support of reconstruction efforts.
In the recent conflict, Egypt has sought to continue this role. It presented in March 2025 at an extraordinary Arab Summit its own proposal for the future of Gaza that served as a counter to the US administration’s calls for the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza and received support from Arab and Islamic states. While President Trump initially gave it a lukewarm reception, a number of elements were ultimately incorporated into the US-brokered ceasefire agreement this month. Egypt also hosted a series of talks in recent months aimed at bridging remaining differences that paved the way for last week’s deal.
Qatar has, since 2012, hosted and provided financial support to the Hamas political leadership. This has led to a complex and controversial relationship, even as it has pursued a strong alliance with the US. This relationship resulted in Qatar emerging as an indispensable diplomatic channel between Hamas, Israel, the United States, and other allies. Having also served as a mediator with Iran in facilitating the release of wrongfully detained Americans, Qatar utilized its unique position throughout the Gaza conflict to broker discussions over the release of Hamas-held Israeli hostages and Palestinian detainees.
Qatar initially suspended its mediation after Israel attempted to assassinate Hamas negotiators in Doha in September 2025, killing a Qatari security guard and injuring several civilians, but resumed after the United States pressured Israel to apologize. This incident played a critical role in focusing the United States on pushing for a new peace plan that led to the current ceasefire, in which Qatar played a crucial role
Turkey has emerged more recently as a key voice in discussions over Gaza’s future, advocating for comprehensive solutions that extend beyond a ceasefire and hostage exchange. Turkey reportedly joined Egypt and Qatar in secret talks in recent months that ultimately paved the way for the deal announced last week. President Erdogan also traveled to Washington, where he held discussions with President Trump at the White House and in a subsequent phone call. Ankara also hosted senior Hamas officials for talks aimed at ending the conflict. Its focus in recent months has been more operational in nature, having assigned its former head of disaster management as its coordinator on aid to Gaza. As one of the guarantors of the ceasefire, indications are that it intends to continue further expanding its role.
Leaders throughout Europe and the Middle East convened in Naples last week for the annual Med Dialogues, many having traveled directly from the October 13 Gaza Peace Summit in Sharm al-Sheikh. While relief and optimism permeated the halls as the Hamas-held hostages were finally released and Israel Defense Forces began to pull back, one theme echoed throughout – as it stands today, there is a viable ceasefire agreement, but not yet a peace agreement. The regional guarantors share a common objective of moving Gaza out of what is now being described as Phase I and into a new implementation and stabilization phase that facilitates significant aid flows, allows for meaningful reconstruction, addresses Gaza’s long-term governance, and provides a sustainable security structure.
Egypt is keen to preserve its historic role as “Umm al-Dunya” or Mother of the World, reflecting its central position among Arabs both culturally and politically. Historically, it has used its influence to support Palestinian factional reconciliation. With a plan involving agreement on a transitional technocratic government and ultimate governance intended over time to shift to a reformed PA, mediating between the Palestinian factions will be a vital contribution in the period ahead. And its reasons are not altruistic – with a massive population and enduring economic pressure, Egypt has been eager to prevent destabilizing spillover from the conflict in the form of additional refugees, militants, or arms smuggling.
Egypt’s March 2025 proposal for Gaza was grounded in a rejection of Palestinian displacement (including potentially into Egypt) and focused on governance, security, and reconstruction. While the security aspects of the proposal were generally lacking in sufficient detail to provide a credible roadmap forward, the plan provided insight into how Egypt plans to approach the next phase in Gaza and where its priorities will lie.
Qatar has positioned itself in recent years as a diplomatic free agent by maintaining strong relations with all parties. The US has relied on this not only in the Hamas context, but previously in Qatar’s mediation of the relationship between the US and the Taliban that led to the 2020 agreement for the US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. This geopolitical positioning has earned Qatar a seat at virtually any international table by expanding its influence both in the Arab world and beyond, as it moves to diversify away from its oil and gas legacy into greater soft power. Qatar will be eager to further expand its international legitimacy and boost its credentials as a defender of Muslim rights by leveraging its wealth and networks to facilitate Gaza reconstruction and stabilization.
Turkey has adopted a more activist foreign policy in recent years, projecting regional leadership through military interventions in places like Syria and Libya, carving out a presence in Northern Iraq focused on countering Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) operations, establishing bases in Somalia, and providing military support to Azerbaijan in its conflict with Armenia. Turkish President Erdogan has walked a fine line between NATO membership and foreign policy independence that seeks to establish Turkey as a world power in its own right. This fine line is on display in Gaza, where Turkey has been willing to go well beyond its Western allies in its criticism of Israel – including via imposition of trade and airspace restrictions – and cooperation with its adversaries. Erdogan has an opportunity to further boost his domestic credentials as a defender of Palestinians, while solidifying economically beneficial ties with the broader Arab world.
The specific duties of Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey (alongside the US) as guarantors of the agreement include holding the parties accountable, monitoring compliance, resolving disputes, and enforcing the agreement. With differing objectives and strategic priorities, there is some risk of divergence among them. With their strategic objectives being based, at least in part, on reputational interests, each country will seek to balance its contributions to long-term Gaza stabilization against preservation of key relationships with other parties (including the US and Israel). While success in engineering a sustainable future for Gaza and an aspirational Palestinian state would be the ultimate pay-off, violations of the ceasefire by both parties in recent days reinforce the extremely difficult path ahead.
Some of the pitfalls expected to face the guarantors in their efforts include a dependency on Israel’s cooperation against a backdrop of Netanyahu’s dependence on his right-wing coalition members who continue to advocate for a long-term (or even permanent) Israeli control over Gaza. The US will be expected to use its unique leverage to ensure Israel’s continued adherence to the agreement. Even then, with the bill for reconstruction expected to come in at more than $50 billion, lack of donor commitments amid continued security instability will further limit progress.
Each of the guarantors will bring differing priorities and capabilities to the effort:
The road ahead will be challenging to say the least. It will require contributions and close cooperation from all three of these actors. It will also require key contributions from other Arab players including Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Jordan. All of these parties will have to present a united front to Hamas in order to pressure it to make the concessions necessary to move forward. At the same time, the United States must remain heavily engaged in making its own contributions to post-conflict Gaza, consolidating international support and contributions, and pressing Israel to make the necessary concessions that would give this effort a chance to succeed.