Notice from the editors, October 3, 5:50 pm: Hamas declared its agreement to free all Israeli captives following President Donald Trump’s strategy for peace and expressed a readiness to “deliberate on the specifics” of its enactment. It was yet uncertain whether Hamas concurred with the other provisions in the proposition or when the hostage liberation would occur. Responding to that announcement, Trump commented on Hamas through his Truth Social account, “I am convinced they are prepared for a lasting PEACE,” and urged Israel to cease the bombardment of Gaza to facilitate the secure removal of captives.
Following a crucial triumph by the Allies, well into the duration of World War II, Winston Churchill famously announced that regarding hopes for the conflict’s conclusion, it was “not even the start of the finish. But it is possibly the finish of the start.”
Such expectation management is not characteristic of President Donald Trump. In the presence of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Monday to unveil a new 20-point accord to put an end to the hostilities in Gaza, Trump declared it “among the most exceptional days ever in civilization,” and implied he was nearing not only the termination of the battle that has persisted for nearly two years — but also the ushering in of “eternal tranquility” following millennia of strife in the Middle East.
That might be somewhat of an exaggeration. Yet, to be fair, there were some noteworthy developments in Monday’s declaration, interspersed between humorous remarks regarding the articulation of the Abraham Accords and a few jabs directed at Joe Biden’s memory problems. It is significant that Netanyahu endorsed the accord in any capacity — stating that it “fulfills our objectives for the war” — mere days after a bold address to the UN General Assembly where he pledged to “complete the task” of utterly wiping out Hamas in Gaza through force.
Some of the contents of the accord itself are reminiscent of prior propositions for a cessation of conflict. Hamas would set free all remaining Israeli captives, both living and deceased, within a span of 72 hours. In return, Israel would liberate thousands of Palestinian detainees. Israeli military forces would execute a phased pullback to a security boundary surrounding the outskirts of the strip. Humanitarian assistance would be reinstated to the levels observed following the most recent brief truce in January. Hamas would demilitarize and relinquish any involvement in overseeing Gaza.
Related
- Turning point or political theater? The big push for Palestinian statehood, explained.
- The growing consensus that Israel is committing genocide
However, there are also some seemingly novel aspects present. While the plan anticipates the Palestinian Authority, which presently administers the West Bank, assuming control in Gaza, this is contingent upon substantial reforms being enacted. This phrasing aligns with the Saudi-French proposal presented at the UN earlier in the month. In the interim, the provisional administration of Gaza would be “comprised of skilled Palestinians and global specialists” and overseen by a “Board of Peace” that would feature former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and be headed by Trump himself.
The plan incorporates language affirming that “no individual will be compelled to evacuate Gaza,” which is noteworthy considering Trump’s past strategies for the region — although an allusion to a “Trump economic growth initiative” implies that the vision of a Middle Eastern Riviera has not entirely vanished.
The draft further specifies that “Hamas members who pledge to harmonious coexistence and to deactivate their weaponry will be granted amnesty,” and permitted to depart Gaza, a significant addition that does offer the members of the group a substitute for a capital punishment, albeit it elicits the inquiry of which nation would welcome them.
Nevertheless, the fundamental disagreements that have hindered peace thus far — Hamas is unwilling to disband or surrender the remaining captives that constitute its ultimate form of influence; Israel, or at least segments of the Israeli government, will not consent to withdrawing armed forces and lacks a dependable strategy for Gaza’s future governance — persist.
The recent occurrence involving Ukraine and Russia indicates that Trump’s tolerance with leaders he deems allies is not unlimited, when they fail to meet his benchmarks and optimistic utterances. That same occurrence also reveals that he does not invariably possess an alternative strategy when they do not.
Will Hamas agree to this? Will Israel actually agree to it?
The plan materialized in the wake of dialogues Trump conducted with figures from numerous Muslim countries in New York the previous week, notably President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey. Drawing from these conversations, Trump seems to have been persuaded that Hamas is also in pursuit of peace — he articulated as much on Monday — yet it remains far from assured that the group has consented to anything approximating these stipulations. In the aftermath of the press briefing, senior Hamas representative Muhammad Mardawi informed Al Jazeera that the plan appears to “favor the Israeli viewpoint” and that the group would require receiving it in a written format before rendering an official response.
Although two years of warfare have eradicated a substantial portion of Hamas’s senior echelon and diminished its military prowess, it endures as the predominant political and military entity in Gaza, and demonstrated, through an ambush earlier on Monday in Gaza City, that it retains the capacity to inflict casualties on Israeli troops. Regardless of amnesty prospects, the group appears unlikely to embrace a pact that would effectively necessitate its own self-destruction. The agreement’s wording is similarly imprecise regarding the duration of Israel’s troop retreat. Netanyahu portrayed it at the White House as merely a “modest” departure and underscored multiple instances that Israel would maintain troops in Gaza for the anticipated future. That could be a deal-breaker for Hamas.
“The biggest danger is that both Israel and Hamas say ‘yes’ in principle, but then insist on negotiating every detail, dragging things out for months while the war continues.”
Aaron David Miller, who offered guidance to several presidential governments concerning Mideast peace parleys, suggests it is conceivable that Netanyahu anticipates Hamas rejecting the proposal. Should that transpire, Trump affirmed, “Israel would have my complete support to finalize the undertaking of obliterating the menace of Hamas.”
While Trump was replete with accolades for his associate Bibi on Monday, there has manifestly been some discord in the relationship recently. Trump voiced public discontent regarding Israel’s aerial assaults on Qatar. (Netanyahu contacted the emir of Qatar to extend apologies, with Trump observing, earlier in the day.) Trump also assured Arab leaders he would oppose Israeli annexation of the West Bank.
“I don’t think he wants and can afford a major confrontation with Trump,” Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Vox.
Conversely, it does not appear plausible that Netanyahu could concur with anything mirroring these stipulations while retaining his present administration in power. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, whose right-leaning confederates could destabilize the administration and precipitate fresh elections if they so desired, has delineated his personal six-point array of prerequisites for his sustained endorsement, encompassing no involvement whatsoever for the Palestinian Authority and categorically dismissing a prospective Palestinian nation. (Trump’s new plan declares that once the Palestinian Authority undergoes reform, “the circumstances may at last be ripe for a credible route to Palestinian self-governance and statehood.”)
Could Netanyahu simply disregard Smotrich and his fellow right-wing coalition participants? Israeli opposition leaders Yair Lapid and Benny Gantz have endorsed the plan and implied their willingness to sustain Netanyahu’s administration if he enacted it and Smotrich’s allies severed ties with the prime minister in protest. It remains plausible that Netanyahu could contend in Israel’s forthcoming elections (in autumn 2026, unless an earlier ballot is convened) grounded in the accord. Nonetheless, there has been scant indication since the October 7 assaults that he demonstrates a readiness to cast aside his far-right confederates or their annexationist aspirations.
Reality check: The war is likely far from over
“The biggest danger is that both Israel and Hamas say ‘yes’ in principle, but then insist on negotiating every detail, dragging things out for months while the war continues,” said Ilan Goldenberg, a former Biden administration Mideast adviser, now with the advocacy group J Street. The priority for Trump, Goldenberg said, was to “hold everyone’s feet to the fire” to bring the core tenets of the plan — hostage release, military withdrawal, resumption of aid — to fruition before they get bogged down in debates over Gaza’s future governance.
There exist parallels, in these dialogues, to the ongoing negotiations pertaining to the conflict in Ukraine — and not solely on account of Steve Witkoff having functioned as the unlikely key figure for both. As recently as August, Trump sincerely held the conviction that Russian President Vladimir Putin desired to forge a peace accord, in spite of minimal evidence suggesting such a desire. That depiction could apply to both Netanyahu and Hamas in this scenario. In both wars, Trump has issued audacious and optimistic assurances that peace is imminent prior to securing firm commitments to that effect. He has also invested substantial faith in his personal bonds — with Putin in one instance; with Netanyahu and various Arab leaders in another — to surmount the fundamental factors propelling protracted conflicts.
As the hostilities in Ukraine have persisted unabated and Putin has rebuffed multiple prospects for compromise, Trump has grown outwardly frustrated that the Russian leader is “stringing me along” and has, rhetorically, transitioned to a maximally hawkish pro-Ukrainian stance. He has been considerably more deliberate, however, in applying the form of economic and military leverage that might compel Putin to compromise.
Similarly, Trump may eventually arrive at the determination that Netanyahu is deceiving him. Indeed, this appears entirely conceivable given the recent fluctuations of their alliance. Yet, would Trump emerge as the inaugural president since, arguably, George H.W. Bush, to deploy genuine economic and political coercion to induce Israel to alter its course? That appears less probable.
Absent such leverage, Miller observes, “it’s hard to imagine that before the end of the year, you could see a fundamental change in the actual situation on the ground.”
We may have gained a preview today of what the culmination of this war might resemble. However, achieving it is poised to necessitate considerably more sustained discourse paired with tangible coercion than we have witnessed thus far or dramatic political transformations within the governments implicated. Either may materialize too belatedly for numerous Hamas hostages or the inhabitants of Gaza.
Source: vox.com
