The Peace Framework for Gaza: Drivers, Details, and Difficulties Ahead

Drivers of the Agreement

The war also posed a challenge to unconditional US support for Israel – especially given the growing difficulty of aligning with the Israeli narrative after two years of genocidal war in Gaza and the mounting international outrage over Israel’s crimes and arrogance. Increasingly, Israel came to be treated as a pariah state committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, with its leaders wanted for international justice. This in turn added to the burden on Washington in sustaining its support for Israel on the world stage. Lately, it has appeared that Trump, who is widely regarded as the most pro-Israel of all US presidents, had lost patience with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Determined to continue the war without any clear prospect of ending it, Netanyahu was preparing Israel to occupy Gaza City, home to around one million Palestinians, and began displacing them, sparking fears of horrific massacres against civilians. Trump’s strong personal ambition to win the Nobel Peace Prize also played a significant role in his shift towards seeking an end to the war in Gaza, as he worked hard to project himself as a peacemaker in conflicts around the world.

The plan was announced with endorsement from several Arab and Islamic states despite none of their proposals being included, causing major embarrassment for Hamas. In effect, the plan provided Netanyahu with a way out of his international isolation by recasting his conditions for ending the war as an international initiative. Hamas was thus compelled to issue a statement and generate a dynamic that would make it difficult to resume the war after the release of Israeli prisoners (all of whom are soldiers and officers), who had become a liability for the movement. The expectation that the release of these prisoners, along with Trump’s celebration of his “achievement”, would create an international atmosphere opposed to resuming the war was primarily a moral wager – its success dependent on the extent of public pressure in the West and on a clear stance from Arab states, which have been the main weak point since the start of the genocide. Hamas’ response thus represented the only feasible way out: granting Trump the symbolic success he sought without accepting the Israeli conditions contained within the US plan.

The following day, Trump announced that Israel and Hamas had signed the first stage of the framework plan, providing for a cessation of hostilities, the release of all prisoners, both alive and dead, and the withdrawal of Israeli forces to what is known as the “yellow line” marking the boundary for the initial phase of Israel’s withdrawal under Trump’s plan.

General Features of the Agreement

Will the Agreement Hold?

Despite the success of the mediators in resolving many of the points of contention between Hamas and the Israeli occupation regarding the first phase of the plan, it remains unclear whether the negotiations have achieved genuine progress on the more complex issues. The agreement reached so far represents merely an initial step within a broader framework, and it cannot be relied upon to secure lasting stability unless the parties can agree on the subsequent phases. While the first phase constitutes the least complicated part of the agreement, questions surrounding the fate of the Palestinian resistance and its weapons, the reconstruction and administration of the Gaza Strip, and Israel’s full withdrawal remain unanswered and undefined. Accordingly, apart from its first phase, which contains clear and binding measures for both parties, Trump’s plan amounts to little more than a set of broad outlines and preliminary principles lacking a comprehensive and coherent strategy for implementation that could bring an end to the conflict and deliver a lasting resolution to the Palestine question.

This, in turn, hinges on Netanyahu’s ability to manoeuvre and exploit the many loopholes and ambiguities within the plan to his own advantage, in the absence of binding guarantees compelling him to uphold the agreement’s terms – something already evident in the matter of the list of Palestinian prisoners. Although implementing the first phase’s provisions concurrently may reduce the chances of the agreement’s collapse, concerns persist that Netanyahu might renege on his subsequent commitments once the Israeli captives have been recovered. In this sense, the later phases of the agreement face genuine challenges, and Israeli adherence to a permanent ceasefire will ultimately depend on the political will of the international community – including the United States, as well as European and Arab states – to end the war and to curb Netanyahu’s desire to resume it.

Conclusion

The announcement of a ceasefire agreement in Gaza marks the most significant step yet towards ending a two-year genocidal war that has left nearly a quarter of a million Palestinians dead or wounded – around 13 per cent of the Strip’s population – representing the highest civilian casualty rate of any modern conflict. The agreement’s first phase draws on strong international momentum and intense US pressure led by President Trump, making it difficult for Netanyahu to back away from it, despite the framework plan’s evident alignment with Israeli demands.

The agreement is structured in two phases: the first entails a ceasefire and a partial Israeli withdrawal, followed by an exchange of prisoners and hostages. This phase serves as a cornerstone for consolidating the ceasefire, yet the agreement as a whole remains complex, as it rests on three distinct frames of reference. Hamas and the Palestinian factions have their own interpretation of the initial terms and their eventual outcomes; Israel, meanwhile, maintains an entirely different vision of the agreement’s final form and the conditions for its implementation. The White House, which ultimately yielded to Israeli terms, seeks to preserve a degree of flexibility that might lead to a permanent cessation of hostilities – something that will depend on Washington’s ability to pressure Israel into resolving the remaining disputes over resistance weapons and the presence of Israeli forces in Gaza through negotiation rather than renewed warfare.

What remains unclear, however, is whether the international momentum observed at the Sharm El-Sheikh summit will translate into genuine pressure to end the war and continue negotiations, or instead turn into pressure on Hamas and a pretext for Israel to resume its assault, under the guise of the resistance’s alleged failure to comply with the Israeli conditions embedded in the US plan.