Sharm El-Sheikh Agreement.. Ambiguity in the clauses and a dilution of

Dr. Hassan Ayoub: The Sharm El-Sheikh document has reintroduced the "Abraham Accords" in a new format based on "regional cooperation stemming from a religious vision"

Oreib Al-Rantawi: Trump's goal was to return to the United States armed with photos with leaders and kings, portraying himself as the "unmatched leader of the world"

Dr. Said Shaheen: The agreement represents America's return to promoting "economic peace" in an attempt to plunder the region's resources under the guise of reconstruction

Hani Abu Al-Sabaa: The agreement was nothing more than an attempt to extricate Israel from its international isolation and grant it additional time amid the recognitions of the State of Palestine

Dr. Saad Nimer: Ambiguity gives Israel a permanent tool to evade commitments by claiming violations, which aligns with its approach in previous agreements

Mohammed Al-Rajoub: The absence of discussion about establishing a state reflects an old American-Israeli consensus to prevent any path leading to a Palestinian political achievement

One week after signing the latest Sharm El-Sheikh agreement, much ambiguity still surrounds many of its provisions. However, what is clear may reframe regional issues within a regional context that focuses on normalization with Israel, clearly ignoring the essence of the Palestinian cause.

Writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors, in separate conversations with "Y," believe that the agreement document, despite containing phrases about "peace, stability, and the rights of peoples," lacks any reference to the right to self-determination or the establishment of a Palestinian state, raising serious questions about its true objectives.

They point out that the document, described as a declaration of general principles, appeared closer to a political cover to highlight Washington's role and entrench its vision for the region. It focused on linking Gaza arrangements to regional security without any practical commitments or clear implementation mechanisms, opening wide space for Israel to interpret the provisions in ways that serve its interests.

They believe that the Sharm El-Sheikh agreement was designed to give Israel additional time and alleviate international pressures on it, while U.S. President Donald Trump promotes the scene as a historic achievement. However, the absence of a just political solution and the neglect of Palestinian rights make this agreement merely a formal stop in the management of the conflict, not a solution.

"Peace arrangements"… and the security and stability of the region

The writer, political analyst, and American affairs specialist Dr. Hassan Ayoub considers that the recently signed Sharm El-Sheikh document, despite its ambiguities in some of its provisions, carries significant clarity in its fundamental strategic dimension, which is the normalization of the Israeli presence in the region without any political counterpart or commitment to Palestinian national rights.

Ayoub clarifies that the document refers in three places to linking what it calls "peace arrangements" in the Gaza Strip to the security and stability of the peoples of the region, including Palestinians and Israelis. However, its formulations were limited to discussing "protecting the basic human rights" of these peoples and safeguarding their security and dignity, which is a "deceptive formulation," as it equates Palestinians with other peoples in the region and deliberately overlooks their right to self-determination and the establishment of their independent sovereign state.

He points out that the document has reintroduced the "Abraham Accords" in a new format based on "regional cooperation stemming from a religious vision," and linked the plan to end the war in Gaza to regional-Israeli relations, completely ignoring the essence of the Palestinian cause, which is to end the occupation and the system of colonialism and apartheid in the West Bank.

The document is closer to "general principles"

Ayoub believes that the ambiguity of the document and the absence of any clear political or executive mechanisms make it closer to "general principles" that fit within what U.S. President Donald Trump described as a "historic agreement," while the practical details will remain contingent on the balance of power and unlimited American support for Israel.

Ayoub asserts that comparing the document to Trump's previous plan to end the war in Gaza shows an additional regression, even from that previous formulation, which was "useless." According to Ayoub, while Trump's plan included a reference—albeit conditional—to a "future role for the Palestinian Authority" in Gaza after specific reforms, the Sharm El-Sheikh document completely ignored any mention of the Palestinian Authority or the PLO or even Palestinian rights.

Ayoub points out that President Mahmoud Abbas's acceptance of the proposed reforms did not yield any Palestinian presence or representation in the document,