**Translated and prepared by**
Hadir El-Bahery
Journalist, Translator, and Researcher in Turkish Affairs
Dubai
The signing by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of the “Declaration of Permanent Peace and Prosperity” at the Sharm El-Sheikh Summit sparked widespread debate over Turkey’s true role in the Gaza ceasefire agreement — between those who see it as an active mediator seeking to persuade Hamas, and those who doubt its ability to assume any actual field commitments.
Turkish writer and analyst Mehmet Ali Güler stated that the claims circulated by some pro-government media outlets regarding Turkey’s role as a “guarantor” in the Gaza agreement are not based on any political or legal reality, clarifying that Ankara “is playing the role of mediator, not guarantor.”
Güler explained that Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan himself denied, in a television interview, that Turkey was acting as a guarantor, emphasizing that its role is limited to mediation.
In an article published in the opposition liberal-secular newspaper *Cumhuriyet*, Güler noted that Erdoğan’s signing of the “Declaration of Permanent Peace and Prosperity” during the Sharm El-Sheikh Summit was exaggerated by pro-government media, which spoke of a “Turkish guarantee for the Gaza Strip,” even though the declaration itself made no reference to any such commitments.
The writer pointed out that the statements by Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan put an end to this debate, as he clearly said: “We are not guarantors, we are mediators. What we have done so far is to mediate between the United States and Hamas.”
Güler believes that this mediation involves Ankara’s attempts to convince Hamas to accept Trump’s peace plan and disarm — a “politically complex” task, but one that does not mean Turkey bears responsibility for guaranteeing the implementation of the agreement.
He added that while Fidan currently denies the concept of a “guarantee,” he did not completely close the door to this role in the future, stating: “If the two-state solution is implemented, we will be ready to assume the responsibility of a guarantor in practice.” Güler described this as a “cautious guarantee,” since Ankara does not want to be tied to an agreement that could collapse at any moment.
Güler further noted that Israel’s recent escalation in Gaza following the signing of the declaration exposed the fragility of the agreement, as Israel launched air and ground raids under the pretext of “Hamas violating the truce,” despite the movement’s full commitment to the ceasefire.
The writer concludes that Ankara “is trying to avoid falling into the trap of assuming responsibility for an agreement it cannot control,” arguing that “the real problem does not lie solely with Israel, but also with the U.S. role, which continues to escalate instead of enforcing calm.”
Güler warns that relying on the United States as a guarantor of peace in Gaza remains a risky option, highlighting the need for an independent Turkish strategy capable of protecting its regional interests.
