The next 48 hours will prove critical – not just for Trump’s plan, but for lasting peace in Gaza

To describe the next 24 to 48 hours as crucial to the future of the Middle East would be an understatement. Even as the leaders of more than 20 countries, including the US president, prepare to converge on the Egyptian resort of Sharm El-Sheikh for the signing of the agreement that Donald Trump initiated, the risks are as evident as the hopes.

After more than two years of vicious killings and mass destruction, however, it is surely worth – to use that time-honoured, but today rarely heard phrase – giving peace a chance. There are still many obstacles to overcome. But the positives for the first time might just outweigh the negatives.

Since the Gaza ceasefire agreement was so dramatically sealed last week, Israeli forces have moved back to the agreed line and ceased their fire. Gazans have begun returning to their homes, though it is a desperate and dismal spectacle that awaits them. Early reports suggest that aid, delayed for so long, has finally begun to flow after what appeared to be some early hitches. The aid convoys, it should also be stressed, are organised once again by the UN, ending Israel’s attempts to sideline international relief organisations.

The untrammelled joy on display at the rally in Tel Aviv on Saturday night – at which Mr Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, his daughter Ivanka and special envoy Steve Witkoff were all cheered and thanked, unlike the Israeli prime minister – also created a benevolent atmosphere for what looks set to be the triumphal progress of Donald Trump. In a flurry of activity typical for him, but uncharacteristic of almost any other US president, he is due to meet the hostage families in Tel Aviv, address the Knesset in Jerusalem, before arriving in Sharm El-Sheikh not only to sign last week’s agreement, but to preside, with Egypt’s president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, over what is styled a “summit for peace”.

From the half-dozen regional powers that finalised last week’s agreement, including Qatar and Turkey, the list of those likely to attend includes a wide range of more than 20 regional and international leaders, including from the UK, the EU and the secretary general of the UN. Iran has also been invited.

The swathe of countries represented at the highest level constitutes in itself a positive statement of broad international goodwill. But the venue – in the heart of the region, rather than, say, on the White House lawn – also sets the process in a wider context than Israel-Palestine and roots it in the region as rarely before.

That the omens look relatively auspicious, however, does not mean that there are not huge risks – any one of which could derail the current agreement, let alone any further progress. Every detail already agreed, on the ceasefire, on aid deliveries and on the release of hostages and prisoners, must be observed to the letter. The slightest deviation, and the whole fragile agreement could be in danger of collapse.

The return of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners will be a time of particular peril. The stipulation that the releases should be private – unlike sometimes in the past – is wise, but the exchanges must not be allowed to descend into public recriminations that could disrupt and even end the wider agreement.

If, as is hoped, talks then continue to the next stage, the risks only grow. Phase two covers the immediate governance of the strip, the barring of Hamas from power and the decommissioning of its weapons. These are aspects of Mr Trump’s plan that Hamas has either called into question or outright rejected. What happens here will be a test – of the remaining strength of Hamas, of Israel’s ability to get its way, and of the determination of the US and its regional allies. An international consensus at the peace summit could be vital to the prospects for a broader and more durable peace.

And here, perhaps the key to further progress will be the personal engagement of Mr Trump, just as it was to the conclusion of the Gaza ceasefire and hostage agreement. The US president cannot be faulted for his ambition, which goes far beyond ending the war in Gaza to working towards the sort of peace that has eluded the region for so long. How feasible this might be, however, is another matter.

His own attention span and the inevitable press of other emergencies on the president’s time will be complicating factors. The direct involvement in the negotiations of his immediate family and his personal envoy, Mr Witkoff, on the other hand, could betoken a more lasting commitment. Such a family angle makes for highly unconventional diplomacy, but in a region where traditional diplomacy has so often failed, there has to be a strong argument for supporting whatever works.

And the readiness of so many national leaders to clear their diaries at a moment’s notice to go to Egypt clearly illustrates both Mr Trump’s unique clout and the extent of support for an end to the Gaza war. The Sharm El-Sheikh summit will not in itself change the reality on the ground overnight, but it has the potential to transform the international dynamic, which could offer the best hope for a new, and more comprehensive peace process to emerge in the Middle East.