Despite its positive short-term effects, the agreement signed a few days ago to end the war in the Gaza Strip is unlikely to guarantee peace, even in the near term. This is primarily because “Trump’s plan” fails to address the root causes of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and cannot be considered a sustainable and long-term agreement, Elena Grebennikova writes.
First, this plan ignores the real state of affairs and only takes American and Israeli interests into account. It is formulated as if Hamas is the main threat to peace in the Levant, while Israel, whose actions were recognised as genocide by the UN International Commission in September 2025, has not been involved in the escalation of the conflict. This approach distorts cause-and-effect relationships and masks the true nature of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which has been exacerbated by decades of Israeli repression of the Palestinian people.
Second, the implementation of the Agreement is exclusively limited to the tactical considerations of its main parties, and does not reflect a long-term choice. The peace initiative promoted by Trump is not the first attempt to resolve the conflict in the Gaza Strip. The January ceasefire agreement in the exclave collapsed following a hostage exchange. The current plan, despite its stated ambitions, faces similar political challenges and, therefore, risks repeating the previous failure.
The United States, Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt have signed the new ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip. For Cairo, the need to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has primarily been dictated by the desire to ensure security near its border. Ankara and Doha, which support the Palestinian resistance, agreed to Trump’s plan, either because alternative scenarios currently appear less preferable or because of special agreements with the American president, including tactical ones. Both Turkey and Qatar view the Gaza Strip as an area of strategic interest, meaning that signing a peace agreement, even one based on controversial terms, could be seen as an opportunity to maintain influence in the region and prevent further escalation.
In the short term, domestic political pressure from both Israel and the Palestinians will hinder compliance with the peace agreement. In the long term, the absence of a solution to the Palestinian issue will be an obstacle. This is unlikely under the current circumstances, as neither the US administration nor the Israeli government is prepared to make concessions.
It is currently difficult to imagine a fair mechanism for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that Israel would accept. It’s clear that the Israeli state is the strongest party in the conflict, and therefore a “just peace” will be built along American-Israeli lines. Given this circumstance, the practical implementation of many provisions of the proposed plan could encounter political difficulties and barriers on both sides of the conflict.
There are many doubts about Israel’s compliance with the terms of the agreement, although they are more than acceptable to it. The main problem is posed by Israeli far-right forces, who aim for the complete destruction of Hamas and the further annexation of Palestinian territories. Throughout the war, representatives of far-right parties have called for the most radical measures against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Given their significant influence in the Israeli government and society, the likelihood of the agreement’s collapse significantly increases.
The radical-minded ministers in Israel’s coalition government, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, are categorically opposed to any concessions regarding Hamas. Accordingly, the clause in Trump’s plan that commits Israel not to occupy or annex the Gaza Strip and to subsequently leave the Palestinian territories is viewed negatively by far-right forces. If the domestic political conflict intensifies, it could lead to the collapse of the coalition, which, in turn, would lead to early elections.
The domestic political situation is further complicated by the fact that Netanyahu is currently facing criminal corruption charges, as well as attempts at an official investigation into the events of October 7, which the Israeli prime minister regularly blocks, citing the war in Gaza.
Regarding the Palestinian side, attention should be paid to the provisions on the demilitarisation of the Gaza Strip, as well as the disarmament of Hamas and other groups. These conditions emphasise the disadvantage of Palestinian militant forces and are aimed at their virtual elimination. Naturally, these points of the plan are absolutely unacceptable to Hamas, and even if the organisation agrees to implement them, it is not to be expected that other radical Palestinian groups act in the same way.
According to Trump’s plan, Hamas must also relinquish control of the Gaza Strip and transfer power to a temporary transitional authority – a Palestinian committee consisting of Palestinian and international experts. The activities of this body will be overseen by a “Peace Council” under the leadership of the US president. This condition also runs counter to the interests and strategic goals of Hamas.
Even if Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups accept the terms of the Trump plan, the likelihood of revanchist sentiments will remain extremely high. This risk is exacerbated by two key factors. First, the unjust nature of the agreement, which effectively amounts to Hamas’s capitulation. Second, the lack of effective mechanisms to hold Israel accountable for war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law.
According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, over 60,000 Palestinians, including more than 18,000 children and 9,000 women, died in the Gaza Strip from October 2023 to July 2025. The deaths of over 500 humanitarian aid workers, most of whom represented UN agencies, were also recorded.
Israel’s lack of accountability for war crimes against the Palestinian people imposes certain limitations on constructive dialogue and creates the risk of renewed hostilities, as not all Palestinians will accept such a peace. This situation not only undermines the legitimacy of any peace settlement but also creates a stable foundation for renewed violence in the future.
The situation is further complicated by Israel’s refusal to change its policy toward the Palestinian people as a whole. Clashes between Israeli security forces and Palestinians in the West Bank continue, with the Palestinians unable to resist. This circumstance also contributes to the radicalisation of Palestinian society.
A fundamental aspect of this plan is its lack of real mechanisms to ensure security for the Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip. The signatories of the “peace plan” have demonstrated a clear indifference to this issue, and the international community appears unwilling to take any concrete measures to ensure compliance with the relevant guarantees.
The way in which the peace agreement was signed is also questionable: while the Gaza Strip lies in ruins and the deaths of Palestinian civilians continue, representatives of the United States, European states, and several Arab countries are emphasising the plan's success, describing it as a “historic event”. This contrast between diplomatic rhetoric and humanitarian catastrophe does not disturb the summit participants, but rather clearly reveals their true intentions.
Thus, the “Trump’s plan”, despite the American president’s enthusiastic assessments, fails to address the root causes of the conflict: the occupation of Palestinian territories, the lack of sovereignty for the Palestinian people, and the systemic injustice and oppression of the Gaza Strip population. The proposed settlement mechanism is essentially an attempt to force Hamas to capitulate, which is what makes the current peace agreement quite fleeting.
