The relief following the halt in hostilities in Gaza is substantial. In Israel, the liberation of captives held alive has led to extensive joy. Throughout Gaza and the West Bank, festivities are also underway as approximately 2,000 Palestinian inmates begin their release – though concern lingers due to doubt about which prisoners are returning and their eventual placements. In northern Gaza, residents can at last return to search the debris for the remnants of an estimated 10,000 those who have disappeared.
As recently as three weeks ago, the chance of a ceasefire seemed unlikely. But it has come into force, and on Monday Donald Trump travelled from Jerusalem, where he was cheered in the Knesset, to Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt. There, he attended a prestigious peace summit of more than 20 world leaders, featuring Sir Keir Starmer. The plan for peace launched at that summit is due to be continued at a assembly in the UK. The US president, acting with international partners, did make this deal come to fruition – despite, not because of, Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Expectations that the deal represents the opening phase toward Palestinian statehood are comprehensible – but, in light of previous instances, rather hopeful. It offers no clear path to independence for Palestinians and risks dividing, for the immediate period, Gaza from the West Bank. Furthermore the complete destruction this war has caused. The omission of any timeframe for Palestinian autonomy in the US initiative contradicts self-aggrandizing mentions, in his Knesset speech, to the “historic dawn” of a “age of abundance”.
Donald Trump was unable to refrain from polarising and individualizing the deal in his speech.
In a period of relief – with the hostage release, halt in fighting and restart of aid – he chose to recast it as a ethical drama in which he exclusively reinstated Israel’s dignity after supposed treachery by previous American leaders Obama and Biden. This even as the Biden administration previously having undertaken a analogous arrangement: a truce tied to humanitarian access and eventual negotiations.
A proposal that withholds one side substantive control is incapable of delivering sustainable agreement. The ceasefire and humanitarian convoys are to be welcomed. But this is not yet diplomatic advancement. Without processes guaranteeing Palestinian involvement and control over their own institutions, any deal endangers perpetuating oppression under the rhetoric of peace.
Gaza’s people crucially depend on relief assistance – and food and medicines must be the primary focus. But rebuilding should not be postponed. Within 60 million tonnes of wreckage, Palestinians need assistance repairing homes, schools, hospitals, mosques and other organizations destroyed by Israel’s military operation. For Gaza’s transitional administration to thrive, monetary resources must arrive promptly and security gaps be filled.
Similar to much of Donald Trump's resolution initiative, allusions to an multinational security contingent and a suggested “board of peace” are worryingly ambiguous.
Strong global backing for the Gaza's governing body, permitting it to take over from Hamas, is perhaps the most hopeful scenario. The immense hardship of the previous 24 months means the moral case for a resolution to the conflict is possibly more critical than ever. But while the ceasefire, the repatriation of the detainees and pledge by Hamas to “remove weapons from” Gaza should be recognized as favorable developments, the president's track record gives little reason to have faith he will deliver – or consider himself obligated to try. Short-term relief does not mean that the prospect of a Palestinian state has been brought closer.
Aria Vance is a savvy shopping expert and deal hunter, dedicated to uncovering the best VIP discounts and sharing money-saving tips with readers.