Israel’s inability to defeat the resistance after 2 years of
fighting, despite possessing every military and technical advantage,
represents an extraordinary and historic achievement for Gaza’s
defenders
In a deft diplomatic move, Hamas accepted key elements of the plan
while calling for clarifications and deferring other points to
Palestinian national consensus and international law. This allowed them
to appear constructive, avoid outright rejection, and shift
responsibility back onto Israel. Hamas’s acceptance also vindicates the
strategic logic behind the October 7 attacks, which made Palestinian
statehood a renewed subject of international discourse. Now, as
negotiations unfold, the central question remains: can this agreement
succeed where so many others have failed, or is it destined to become
another chapter in a long history of broken promises?
What’s different about Trump’s plan is that unlike past ceasefires,
which often served as temporary pauses, this one claims to seek a
definitive end to the war. It also emerges amid shifting global opinion.
Worldwide sympathy for Palestinians has grown substantially, and even
traditionally staunch allies of Israel are now openly critical of its
conduct. Within the U.S., public sentiment is increasingly vocal in demanding justice for Gaza, placing new pressure on Washington to act.
The agreement, which is deliberately loose and laden with potential
loopholes, hinges on two deeply contentious issues: disarmament and
governance.
The demand for Hamas to lay down its weapons represents the most
significant obstacle. From Hamas’s perspective, disarmament is
tantamount to political suicide. Their weapons are not only a symbol of
resistance but also, once the hostages have been released, their only
leverage. History offers a sobering lesson: after the PLO disarmed in
Lebanon in 1982, Palestinians were subjected to the Sabra and Shatila massacres. In Northern Ireland, the IRA did not fully decommission until years after the Good Friday Agreement, once political guarantees were in place.
Nothing in Trump’s plan ensures Israeli compliance after Palestinian
disarmament. In fact, the agreement allows Israel to determine whether
Hamas has sufficiently disarmed and to resume military operations if it
decides otherwise. This asymmetry all but invites sabotage.
For Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, the war has always
been intertwined with his political survival. Israel has hit both a
military and psychological wall in Gaza. Casualties mount, domestic
pressure grows, yet accepting this deal would likely fracture his ruling
coalition and end his career. He has already vowed never to fully
withdraw. His incentive is to prolong the conflict, and the agreement’s
vague language offers him ample room to do so.
Hamas, too, is fighting for relevance. Having achieved its central
goal - forcing the Palestinian issue back onto the global stage - it now
risks overplaying its hand. By accepting a technocratic governance
model while insisting on its own inclusion, Hamas is positioning itself
for long-term political legitimacy, much like Hezbollah in Lebanon or
Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland.
Trump has also put his credibility on the line, threatening Hamas with “all hell breaking loose”
if it does not comply and explicitly ordering Israel to stop bombing.
But Hamas does not respond to threats and Gaza has already endured hell.
The real test is whether Trump can compel Israel to adhere to the
terms.
History is not encouraging. No U.S. president has successfully
pressured Israel into concessions that fundamentally challenge its
security paradigm. The current U.S. administration remains strongly
pro-Israel, and Trump’s own “deal of the century” in 2020 was widely criticised as one-sided.
This plan, with its single deadline - 72 hours for hostage release -
and lack of reference to international law, is flimsier still.
If the past is any guide, Israel will use the hostage exchange as a
pretext to reset the terms, declare Hamas non-compliant, and resume
hostilities. The goal openly stated by Israeli officials remains the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. This genocidal project enjoys broad popular support in Israel, and many leaders see this war as a historic opportunity.
Elements of the plan could, in theory, lead to a better political
future. If implemented in good faith, international oversight and Arab
investment could begin rebuilding Gaza and establish a foundation for
eventual statehood. Figures like Al-Jolani in Syria - once designated a
terrorist, now negotiating with U.S. officials - show that militant groups can transition into political actors.
But “ceasefire” has often been a trap in this conflict: a tactical
pause used to regroup and intensify violence. Without concrete
guarantees, maps of withdrawal, and a clear disarmament sequence tied to
political progress, this agreement may simply become another stage in
Gaza’s destruction.
Ultimately, success depends on Washington’s willingness to pressure
Israel not with rhetoric, but with real consequences. If Trump is
serious, he must be prepared to withhold aid, impose sanctions, and
leverage diplomatic capital. Otherwise, this plan will join a long list
of U.S.-led initiatives that promised peace but delivered only more
suffering.
Two years of violence have left Gaza shattered and its people
traumatised. As the world watches, the stakes could not be higher.
Either the U.S. finally changes its approach or history repeats itself
and Gaza continues to burn.
Members can leave comments about this newsletter on the Arab Digest website.