The events of the past 24 hours in the Gaza Strip have allowed the world to exhale — and most of all, the Palestinians, who in just the last two years have mourned more than 65,000 dead, among them thousands of children. The latest developments can be credited, without dispute, as a major success for Donald Trump — a moment when, as the Anglo-Saxons say, “opportunity met ability.”
Trump exerted a level of pressure on Israel that no American administration had applied before, and at just the right time. A series of other factors also aligned. Israel’s strike in Doha alarmed Washington, raising fears that inaction could cost the U.S. a powerful ally in the region. Meanwhile, Iran and Hezbollah have both been significantly weakened in recent months, while Turkey’s attention is turned elsewhere, prompting Ankara to exert some pressure of its own on Hamas.
Still, it would be premature to describe what is happening as the beginning of a long-term peace plan. What we have before us is a ceasefire — more solid than previous ones, with the potential to evolve into something enduring.
For any real discussion of peace to take root, Gaza must be given a political horizon. The technocratic administration that, under Trump’s plan, is to govern the enclave cannot realistically be politically neutral — such neutrality simply doesn’t exist in Gaza. At best, it will be made up of figures informally linked to Fatah, though not to Hamas or Islamic Jihad.
That is the optimistic scenario — if everything goes smoothly. But should the plan collapse at any stage, it will inevitably breathe new life into Hamas. It is an illusion to believe that the soil of radicalization can be swept away with the stroke of an agreement. Nor should we forget that Israel’s violent settlement expansion in the West Bank continues unabated.
This new agreement is, in fact, less favorable to the Palestinians than the truce of last February — the one Israel itself went on to violate. If at any stage Tel Aviv backtracks, the Palestinian side will be left without any leverage at all. Agreements structured in stages like this one, after all, always — and without exception — favor the stronger party.
