Critics argue that this cancellation could be a tactical maneuver to avoid potential public backlash or unfavorable media coverage during sensitive talks. Some believe it may actually pave the way for more direct and effective communication channels in the future, bypassing the need for high-profile meetings that often attract unwanted attention.

The risk lies in the perception of weakness and lack of commitment to diplomatic solutions.

There are concerns about the influence of domestic politics on foreign policy decisions.

The cancellation sets a precedent that may be difficult to reverse without significant diplomatic efforts. Future negotiations will likely face skepticism and resistance from both sides, making it harder to build trust and cooperation. The lack of visible progress could fuel nationalist sentiments and increase pressure on leaders to adopt more confrontational stances.

This decision is likely to polarize public opinion sharply. Supporters may see it as a necessary step to avoid diplomatic pitfalls, while critics will view it as an abandonment of peace efforts. The tribal divide will be evident in media coverage and political discourse, with each side reinforcing its stance through selective narratives.