Trump says Israel-Hamas war is over, but the road to peace is fragile

U.S. President Donald Trump was in a bullish mood as he and other global leaders in Egypt signed on Monday the first phase of the Gaza ceasefire agreement, seen as a precursor to a possible peace deal between Hamas and Israel.

“This took 3,000 years to get to this point, can you believe it? And it’s going to hold up too,” Trump said confidently as he signed the deal in front of the world’s media.

“We’ve achieved what everybody said was impossible — at long last, we have peace in the Middle East,” Trump said later during a news conference, flanked by other leaders. “Nobody thought we could ever get there, and now we’re there,” he added.

While most agree that Trump deserves credit for helping to bring an immediate end to the devastating war between Israel and Hamas — which saw the return of Israeli hostages after two years in captivity and release of almost 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and detainees — achieving a long-lasting peace is a different matter.

Advertisement

“At the end of the day, getting to a ceasefire was very, very important. It was important not just for Gaza and Israel, but for the whole region which has been consumed by this conflict. But it’s also the easy part,” Rob Geist Pinfold, lecturer in International Security, at King’s College London, told CNBC Tuesday.

“Both sides have shown some desire to come to the table and talk and reach some kind of a deal, but the real differences are on what comes ‘the day after’,” Geist Pinfold noted.

Analysts note that detail is scant in Trump’s 20-point peace plan, meaning there are a number of grey areas and room for discontent and disagreement in the near and long-term.

This is particularly salient when it comes to both immediate matters in the peace proposal, such as the demilitarization of Hamas and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gazan territory it currently controls, to perhaps the biggest bone of contention: a two-state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians.

Trump refused to be drawn on the matter as he travelled to Israel on Monday, telling reporters on Air Force One: “I’m not talking about a single state or double state or two state,” before adding: “A lot of people like the one-state solution, some people like the two-state solution. We’ll have to see.” 

While both sides had said “yes” to the ceasefire deal — with little other option given growing international pressure and disquiet from Trump and regional partners in the Middle East, as well as the weakening of Iran, Hamas’ backer — both sides will be looking for the other to violate and scupper the deal, experts say.

“Israel’s demand that Hamas be demilitarized, that its leaders go into exile … would essentially mean that Hamas would be, if they agreed to it, committing institutional suicide,” Geist Pinfold said.

“On the other side an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip is something that [Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu has resisted from day one,” he said, adding: “So the stakes are very, very high here.”

Advertisement

The peace plan envisages the creation of a “board of peace,” to be chaired by Trump, to oversee the creation of a transitional authority to administer Gaza and supervise its reconstruction. How this will work in practice is also ambiguous, as well as who will keep the peace.

“When it comes to the peacekeepers, we don’t know how many there will be, what countries they will be from when they would be deployed, or what their mandate will be. All these questions have been kicked down the road,” Geist Pinfold said.

Uriel Abulof, a visiting professor in Cornell University’s government department and professor of politics at Tel-Aviv University, agreed that the deal signed at the peace summit in Egypt on Monday was not necessarily a “peace deal.”

“It’s a survival pact for leaders who thrive on conflict. For two years, Netanyahu and Hamas have used this war to solidify their power, continuing a long-standing dynamic where each side’s extremism justifies the other’s,” Abulof said in emailed comments.

“This agreement, forced upon them by external patrons like the U.S. and Qatar, is deliberately vague on core issues, allowing both to claim a win,” he added.

Abulof said both sides shared an “unspoken goal” in looking to block a viable Palestinian Authority from governing Gaza. “Consequently, lasting peace isn’t on the table,” he said.

“The only path forward is through civic renewal, where Israelis and Palestinians replace leaders who see perpetual war as essential for staying in power,” he said.

Feelings of bitterness, distrust and enmity, if not outright hatred, run deep on both sides of the simmering conflict and the latest eruption of tensions has left thousands dead and displaced 1.7 million people, according to the United Nations.

Hamas’ attack on Israel on Oct. 7 2023 saw the terrorist group kill 1,200 people and take hundreds hostage. Israel’s response and the ensuing war left more than 67,000 Palestinians dead, including thousands of civilians, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. In the process, Gaza itself has been largely destroyed with most buildings in ruins.

That pain and those losses will not be forgotten, let alone forgiven, overnight. At the same time, all peace processes have to start somewhere.

Thomas Schwartz, distinguished professor of History and Political Science at Vanderbilt University, said there’s room for cautious optimism.

“I do see some strong parallels to past breakthroughs in the Middle East, especially Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy and Jimmy Carter’s Camp David agreements,” he noted in emailed comments Monday. 

“That should also teach a bit of caution – in the Middle East, it’s often two steps forward, and then one step backward. It will be a long road to real peace in the region, but I am genuinely optimistic.”