24 months after the militant group attacks of 7 October 2023, where some 1,200 Israeli citizens were killed, and during a devastating conflict in Gaza that has claimed 67,000 Palestinian casualties, the urgency for peace has never been more critical. People in Gaza are in dire need for an cessation to starvation and airstrikes. Israeli citizens want the war to conclude for the sake of remaining hostages and soldiers. Violence has reverberated across the region. Support has been growing around Donald Trump's peace initiative, with both Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas grudgingly indicating acceptance under US threat.
Frail Hopes and Major Rejections
As negotiations through intermediaries between Israel and Hamas beginning in Egypt on Monday afternoon, there are cautious expectations of a breakthrough at last. However, both parties have made it evident that they oppose major parts of the American 20-point proposal, which begins with an halt to fighting, the release of all captives – then the release of Palestinian prisoners – and the resumption of full aid.
For the Israeli leader, ongoing conflict in the region extends his political survival. His allies in government aim to remove Palestinians and settle Gaza. The militant organization has no desire to agree to its own dissolution, and returning the last hostages would remove any leverage it still holds. It has seen much of its leadership eliminated, as well as life in Gaza – but has also watched global sentiment shift unprecedentedly towards support for Palestinians, dragging governments in its aftermath. It can recruit from a huge pool of frustrated and scarred youth.
The Full Plan and Its Disputed Aspects
The full peace plan is even more controversial. Commitments of widespread backing from governments in the region and in the European continent do not mean that they believe it is workable – still less that they want to deploy forces to an “global peacekeeping mission”. But a number hope that a fairer and more realistic path ahead might in some way arise from this situation.
Indeed, this plan is less grotesque than the original concept of a “resort” established through the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. Palestinians would remain, but would be marginalized, as they were in formulating the proposal. The “board of peace” overseeing Gaza appears to be a colonial administration headed by Mr Trump personally and, alarmingly given his history in the area, the former UK prime minister.
The plan pays lip service to eventual self-determination and sovereignty as a mere “goal” – not an entitlement – of the Palestinian people, via a path that is extremely unclear, dependent and uncertain. It declares that the Israeli government will not occupy or annex Gaza. Mr Netanyahu has previously stated that the army would stay in the majority of the territory and would “strongly oppose” a independent Palestine.
Influence and Possibilities
The US leader has strong-armed the Israeli prime minister at last, but lethal attacks persist and he, like his predecessor previously, could have halted the carnage long ago. Telling the two parties to “act quickly” now reflects his short attention span as much as the urgent requirement for peace. He will certainly settle for whatever enables him to take the praise. If the Israeli military ceases operations, it could restart the offensive at any moment – exactly like it broke the ceasefire early this year.
Every chance to stop this war of annihilation must be taken. A superior outcome may emerge from this path, if – a huge if – the American president and other leaders exert heavy, sustained pressure to the Israeli PM and forge a agreement that Middle Eastern countries can fully support, ensuring pressure on the militant group. But lasting peace must not be built upon an abandonment of fundamental Palestinian entitlements.
