• United States

October 10, 2025, 12:08 PM View Comments ()

The breakthrough cease-fire reached in Egypt this week follows two years of unprecedented bloodshed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—marked by levels of cruelty and violence that have shaken the world’s conscience. Although the agreement’s terms have not been fully disclosed, what has been alluded to—and what can be inferred from context—raises serious doubts that the vague framework outlined in the U.S. 20-point “peace plan” being discussed will ever be fully fleshed out and implemented. At the heart of the concern is not merely the vast gulf separating the two sides’ positions or their asymmetry of power, but also that almost everything hinges on the guarantee of one man: U.S. President Donald J. Trump.

Throughout previous cease-fire negotiations, Israel and Hamas remained far apart on several issues, including the timing and totality of Israel’s military withdrawal from Gaza, the disarmament of Hamas, and the nature and structure of future governance in the territory.

In previous talks, including January of this year, mediators addressed the problem by proposing a phased implementation process in which the sticking points were pushed to the second and third stages while the two sides implemented a gradual captive exchange and the entry of humanitarian aid. Yet this phased process allowed the stronger party, Israel, to violate the cease-fire at the end of the first phase with impunity, once it had recovered a considerable number of hostages but before it had to take steps to end the war and withdraw.

These dynamics are once again at play. Despite a broader proposal being tabled by the U.S. president, the negotiators in Egypt have clearly opted for a phased agreement—except this time, the remaining Israeli captives will be released in one go.

The major sticking points in Trump’s plan, including the gaps between the version agreed to by eight Arab and Muslim states on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in September and the one that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revised and accepted in Washington a few weeks later, have not been addressed. That means that the remaining Israeli captives will be released with no guarantees that anything else will be concluded.

While it is a positive that the people of Gaza will not have to wait out a long negotiation process to get some desperate reprieve, the durability of the cease-fire is questionable. And even if a broader agreement is somehow reached, Netanyahu may decide somewhere along the process of implementation that it serves his interests to abandon the deal and either resume his military campaign or find some other arrangement suitable to his interests.

Underlying all of this, however, is a simple notion that makes even the phased negotiation and implementation structure irrelevant: Every concession made by Hamas is irreversible, while every concession made by Israel can be undone.

For example, if Israel withdraws its military from Gaza one day, it can reenter the next; if it releases 1,000 Palestinian prisoners today, it can rearrest them tomorrow. On the other hand, once Hamas frees Israeli hostages, they are gone for good. If it decides to give up its weapons, a mechanism may be put in place to recover them if Israel reneges on the deal, but it will be hard-pressed to do so in practice.

For Hamas, this underlying dilemma makes the guarantor of the agreement absolutely pivotal. Enter the less-than-reliable Trump. Although Hamas officials recently claimed that the group trusts the president to uphold the deal, this couldn’t be further from the truth—and with good reason.

When Israel violated the January cease-fire in March, at the end of the first phase, it did so with Trump’s blessing. In fact, Trump undermined the deal partway through the initial stage by suggesting that Gaza be turned into a “Riviera” under the control of the United States and emptied of Palestinians—a ludicrous idea that made Palestinians seriously question his commitment to basic principles of legality, justice, and morality. This perhaps offhand and ill-considered idea gave Netanyahu the political cover to jettison the second and third stages of the cease-fire and openly pursue the goal of ethnically cleansing the Gaza Strip. Indeed, at every step along the way, Netanyahu and his government ministers claimed that their actions were made pursuant to the Trump plan.

Trump’s credibility has only eroded from there. In June, he allowed Israel to carry out its surprise attack on Iran in the midst of U.S.-Iranian nuclear negotiations, even claiming that he had used a pending round of talks as a smokescreen for Israel. Finally, Trump was implicated in Israel’s attack on Qatar in September—having either allowed it to happen or failed to prevent it.

Ironically, it was this blunderous decision by both Israel and the United States that likely created the opening for the current cease-fire negotiations. Galvanized by the attack, and recognizing the emerging threat to their own security, the Gulf states and other U.S. allies in the region rallied around Qatar and presented a united front to Trump, demanding, among other things, that he rein in Israel and reengage on a plan to end the slaughter and starvation in Gaza.

As evidenced by Trump’s meeting with eight of these states in New York, from which the latest Trump proposal was born, this seemed to have the desired effect. This time around, Trump appears to be more personally engaged than in the past, with his credibility in front of respected regional allies on the line. Also crucial is that these states demonstrated the ability to act as a counterweight to Israeli influence on the Trump administration, enhancing the possibility that Trump applies the requisite pressure on Netanyahu that is needed for successful negotiations. Whether this dynamic between Trump and the Arab states will continue is an open question, but the emerging alliance between those Arab states, Turkey, and Europe is providing extra heft to their diplomatic efforts.

As negotiations proceed, Hamas will have to make some decisions that will challenge the organization at its core. Its officials likely recognize at this point that they are at the end of the road; no one is coming to save the Palestinian people from Israel’s genocidal onslaught. Although momentum is building abroad, it would be foolish to hold out hope that international sanctions and arms embargoes are in the immediate offing and will be enough to stay Netanyahu’s hand while he continues to receive U.S. support.

Meanwhile, Hamas is facing immense pressure and isolation, with even sympathetic countries such as Qatar and Turkey aligning with the position that it should disarm, and it holds virtually no cards beyond the hostages—who will likely all be back in Israel by next week. But how far will Hamas go in compromising on the terms of its own survival to ensure the survival of the Palestinian people in Gaza? How much will it compromise on its sacred principles, such as its right to bear arms and resist an illegal occupation until there is a resolution of the Palestinian question?

There is also the issue of framing a larger political pathway to address Palestinian self-determination, which is not only important to the Palestinian side but also to all countries that will have a role in Gaza going forward. While that point was not addressed coherently in the Netanyahu-revised plan, no state wants to be enmeshed in an endless governance and security role in Gaza, especially while Israel continues to pursue its annexationist goals in the West Bank.

This concern underlies some Arab and European states’ renewed enthusiasm for diplomacy in pursuit of the two-state solution, and it makes them more invested in ensuring that the deal under negotiation is both successful and has a political resolution at the end. At the very least, they are strongly advocating for the return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza, which would partially relieve them of their direct involvement on the ground—although the Israelis are firmly opposed.

Whether Israel wants a broader agreement or not is an open question. The country is heavily isolated and losing friends fast. The bigger issue is what will happen if Netanyahu decides to exit the deal once he achieves his objectives. Will Trump use the leverage over Israel at his disposal to force compliance?

Netanyahu has shown that he knows how to pick his battles with Trump, and when forced to concede, outmaneuver him over time. Since Oct. 7, 2023, he’s also found that waging perpetual, multifront war to be an ideal arena for navigating politics—like being Willy Wonka in his glass elevator, pushing buttons and pulling levers to go in whichever direction he wants.

If Netanyahu were to jettison the deal in full view of the world, there would likely be a large-scale backlash, with more countries signing up to take punitive action against Israel. But experience suggests that only pressure from Trump would force his hand—and that pressure is hardly guaranteed.