T respite brought by the halt in hostilities in Gaza is substantial. Across Israel, the liberation of the living hostages has resulted in broad celebration. Throughout Gaza and the West Bank, festivities are taking place as approximately 2,000 Palestinian detainees begin their release – even as anguish lingers due to doubt about which prisoners are returning and their destinations. In northern Gaza, residents can now go back to sift through wreckage for the bodies of an estimated 10,000 missing people.
As recently as three weeks ago, the likelihood of a ceasefire seemed unlikely. Yet it has taken effect, and on Monday Donald Trump departed Jerusalem, where he was cheered in the Knesset, to Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt. There, he participated in a high-powered diplomatic gathering of over 20 world leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer. The plan for peace begun there is set to advance at a conference in the UK. The US president, cooperating with international partners, did make this deal come to fruition – contrary to, not because of, Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Aspirations that the deal signifies the initial move toward Palestinian statehood are understandable – but, given historical precedent, somewhat optimistic. It provides no definite route to self-rule for Palestinians and endangers splitting, for the near term, Gaza from the West Bank. Then there is the complete destruction this war has produced. The omission of any schedule for Palestinian self-governance in the US initiative gives the lie to boastful references, in his Knesset speech, to the “historic dawn” of a “golden age”.
The US president could not resist polarising and individualizing the deal in his speech.
In a moment of respite – with the liberation of detainees, halt in fighting and renewal of aid – he opted to reframe it as a ethical drama in which he exclusively reinstated Israel’s honor after supposed treachery by past US commanders-in-chief Obama and Biden. This despite the Biden administration previously having undertaken a analogous arrangement: a cessation of hostilities connected with aid delivery and future negotiations.
A proposal that withholds one side substantive control is incapable of delivering legitimate peace. The truce and relief shipments are to be welcomed. But this is not yet diplomatic advancement. Without processes ensuring Palestinian involvement and command over their own institutions, any deal endangers perpetuating oppression under the discourse of peace.
Gaza’s people urgently require relief assistance – and food and medicines must be the initial concern. But restoration cannot wait. Among 60 million tonnes of rubble, Palestinians need help restoring homes, learning institutions, healthcare facilities, religious buildings and other organizations shattered by Israel’s invasion. For Gaza’s provisional leadership to thrive, monetary resources must flow quickly and security gaps be addressed.
Comparable with much of Donald Trump's peace plan, allusions to an global peacekeeping unit and a suggested “board of peace” are worryingly ambiguous.
Robust worldwide endorsement for the Gaza's governing body, allowing it to succeed Hamas, is likely the most hopeful scenario. The immense hardship of the recent period means the moral case for a resolution to the conflict is potentially more urgent than ever. But while the halt in fighting, the return of the captives and vow by Hamas to “demilitarise” Gaza should be recognized as favorable developments, the president's track record offers minimal cause to trust he will accomplish – or consider himself obligated to attempt. Immediate respite should not be interpreted as that the prospect of a Palestinian state has been moved nearer.
A passionate storyteller and life coach dedicated to sharing raw experiences and empowering others through authentic narratives.