At an Egyptian-hosted peace summit over the weekend, with the participation of leaders and senior officials from over 25 countries and international organizations, disagreements over a cessation of hostilities, displacement of Palestinians, sustainable flow of humanitarian assistance and other thorny issues dominated the discussion and prevented any agreements from being made.

How does this crisis impact the trajectory of regional relations?

The unfolding situation is having strong reverberations around the region. Beginning with those most proximate to the conflict, for Egypt and Jordan in particular, the humanitarian crisis and Israeli military response have raised concerns of mass displacement. Accordingly, in response to an Israeli military spokesman suggesting that Palestinians in Gaza fleeing its air strikes should head to Egypt, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi said he would not allow the issue to be settled at the expense of others. King Abdullah of Jordan stressed that Israel’s displacement of one million Palestinians is a redline, fearing the precedent and potential for Israel to call for substantial numbers of West Bank Palestinians to go to Jordan so Israeli forces can confront extremist groups in the West Bank.

This further strain on Israel’s relations with Egypt and Jordan — the “original peacemakers” with Israel, and those Arab countries for which the Palestinian issue resonates most closely — will have repercussions. Israel had to withdraw its diplomatic staff from both Amman and Cairo. This triangle of relations has been the locus of efforts toward Israeli-Palestinian de-escalation, as witnessed by the 2023 U.S.-led Aqaba-Sharm El Sheikh process. Deterioration in these relations will have an impact on the prospects of ending the war and the release of the hostages and prisoners of war — which Egypt traditionally played an important role in achieving — and may affect regional stability. However, Qatar succeeded in persuading Hamas to release two American hostages and indicated that it will continue its efforts to release other hostages.

It is important to remember that Hamas’ attack and the ensuing war took place as the United States was diligently working on advancing an historic Israeli-Saudi normalization agreement. Just last month, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had indicated that “every day we get closer” to normalization with Israel. However, reports indicate that the Saudis have informed Washington that they have frozen normalization talks, reinforcing that the Palestinian question is not a marginal issue in the quest for normalization.

It was in this vein that a resolution from the Arab League ministerial meeting called not only for an immediate cessation of the war, warning of the catastrophic humanitarian and security repercussions, but also warned against attempts to displace Palestinians and urged Israel to resume talks to achieve the two-state solution on the basis of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.

A key focus of the Saudi interest in normalization has been regional stabilization and de-escalation, a theme also highlighted in the Arab League resolution that warned of the spread of violence. The extent of this concern for regional violent disintegration was underscored when Saudi crown prince spoke to Iran’s president for the first time since ties were restored, and the UAE reportedly urged Syria not to interfere in the war. But a looming Israeli ground invasion of Gaza could render these efforts moot. For its part, Hezbollah may consider a potential total defeat of Hamas to be a redline that would force it to take more forceful action.

What are you concerned about in the weeks ahead?

Many people are asking what happens “the day after?” In the immediate term, the Hamas attack took Israel by surprise, making Israel less certain it is capable of going to war on multiple fronts. And while the attacks show that Hamas is clearly a force to be reckoned with, Hamas’ plans for what comes next, whether militarily or on the diplomatic front, are not clear.

On the Israeli side, the country’s leadership is coming under criticism for what some analysts consider a willful policy of strengthening Hamas and weakening the Palestinian Authority (PA) to avoid pressure to advance toward negotiations and kill the prospects of the two-state solution. The PA has now clearly been further weakened.

Israel’s military leadership has declared that the objective of the military operation in Gaza is to “completely destroy the government and military capacity of Hamas and the terrorist organizations.” It is not evident that this is achievable, nor what would come after.

Even if Israel succeeds in destroying Hamas’ capability to govern Gaza, it would be impossible for the PA to return to power in Gaza on the back of an Israeli tank. This has implications for what comes next in Gaza. Even before that, if there is a ground invasion, the PA will be challenged in its ability to maintain security and authority in the West Bank, where protests calling for a change in leadership have already emerged. This challenge is compounded by extremist settlers, who have intensified terrorist attacks on Palestinian communities in recent months. Combined, these developments — along with continued attacks by the Israeli army on Jenin and Nablus in particular — may result in loss of control by the PA and a chaotic situation in the West Bank.

Many parts of Arab public opinion are disappointed by Western countries insisting on the rule-based international order while seeming to delay taking steps to deliver humanitarian relief in accordance with international humanitarian law and hesitating to mediate de-escalation measures.

On all sides, there are expectations and demands for accountability for the alleged war crimes of all belligerents.

As developing events and protests outside U.S., European and Israeli embassies around the Middle East have underscored, the impact of this war, how it continues to be fought and how it ends will have profound ramifications. Many believe that the status quo can no longer continue indefinitely, with conflicts managed and military confrontations dealt with through a fire-fighting approach. It is important to acknowledge that the calls for a more proactive pathway toward peace should be heeded.