The release by Hamas on Monday of the remaining living Israeli hostages is a first step in the justifiably heralded 20-point plan put together in recent weeks by President Donald Trump and key regional and European partners.
This represents the most significant movement toward peace in the two years of conflict sparked by the horrific Hamas attacks on Israel in October 2023.
In addition to opening a path to ending the human suffering caused by the conflict, the plan put forward by Trump also possibly signals a strategic shift toward recognizing the important role that diplomacy can play in serving U.S. interests, and an acceptance of the fact that proactive U.S. leadership is an indispensable component of maintaining a stable international system with all the attendant political, economic and security benefits that flow to the U.S. from a stable, cooperation-based international order.
The Trump administration should be praised for its willingness to step into a high-risk role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After all, many previous U.S. administrations have brought high hopes for a durable solution to the persistent and tragic conflicts in the Middle East only to see those hopes come crashing down when confronted with the complexities of a region that remains of great importance to the United States.
As a region, the Middle East is a crossroads where Asia, Africa and Europe meet; it is the birthplace of three great religions that shape the culture of the modern world; it is the source of the global economy’s most abundant and accessible hydrocarbon resources; and, sadly, it is a spawning ground of extremist movements and national actors that seek to overturn the peace and prosperity of societies far from the violence that pervades many areas of this troubled region.
Addressing the risks that will emerge in the coming weeks and months will weigh heavily on hollowed-out U.S. institutions charged with responsibility for conducting inclusive diplomacy. They will also be responsible for anticipating and shaping policy decisions likely to be taken by Israel, Hamas and the regional stakeholders.
But perhaps most challenging in the near future, the U.S. coalition will be directing the unprecedented humanitarian and infrastructural demands called for in the plan and transforming what is for now a blueprint for peace into a workable framework on the ground. Beginning as early as today, symbolic gestures and aid pledges cannot substitute for the hard, risky and expertise-driven compromises required.
What, then, might be different about this moment in the region’s troubled history that could give us grounds for hoping that the risks Trump is taking on will yield the hoped-for rewards?
There is cause for hope. The fundamental grievances at the root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have not changed, but quietly, regional politics have undergone a profound shift in the past decade, creating new geopolitical calculations and new regional coalitions with incentives to look beyond the sterile and dogmatic positions that have, for the past 60 years, obstructed a resolution to the conflict.
A great deal of the detailed work behind the scenes in crafting the 20-point Gaza plan was done by political leaders and diplomats from the region, starting with Qatar, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The unprecedented willingness and ability of these countries to work together, and then to appeal collectively to the United States to take on a leadership role, is cause for hoping that something different may be at play this time.
On the plus side, the Gaza peace plan outlines a clear structure for a ceasefire, demilitarization of Gaza, phased withdrawal of Israeli forces and reconstruction with international oversight. Humanitarian priorities and a mechanism for transition to technocratic Palestinian governance could stabilize Gaza and address immediate suffering while setting the stage for success in subsequent phases of the plan.
Disarmament of Hamas will be a major sticking point — Hamas leaders have not agreed to points in the plan addressing their status and future role. Likewise, Israel will seek limits on full withdrawal from Gaza.
And Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government will likely seek to interpret the ambiguity of the plan on the question of Palestinian statehood in a manner that precludes the emergence of the so-called “two-state solution.” Both Hamas and segments of the Israeli government remain highly resistant to key parts of the agreement, which could derail later phases.
A successful transition from two years of devastating conflict to something different, and hopefully, ultimately, to what might evolve into a durable solution will hinge on continued international engagement with U.S. leadership, credible security guarantees, effective aid delivery, and viable reforms to Palestinian governance.
Without these — and with the critical and hotly disputed question of creating a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital unresolved — the prospects for a truly durable solution remain as uncertain as they have always been.
But today we have a credible plan that is attracting broad international support. It is also reasonable to hope that Trump was right when he told the Israeli Knesset on Oct. 13, “This long and difficult war has now ended.”