The Gaza deal opens the door. We can’t let it close

After two long, terrible years of death, destruction and trauma, Israel and Hamas silenced their weapons this weekend. This was the first step in implementing the first phase of what we hope will become what President Trump called: a real and lasting peace agreement. That moment was the first step towards ending a devastating war and unimaginable human suffering. For the families of the hostages who have finally been reunited, this moment brings long-delayed relief. For the Palestinian people of Gaza, it provides hope that the relentless destruction and death will end, and they can begin to rebuild their lives and their nation.

But relief alone is not peace. Hope alone is not justice. Implementing the first phase of the twenty-point plan does not make its implementation inevitable.

If you have been following Israeli-Palestinian relations for any length of time, you would be forgiven for having some doubts about what will happen next. We remember that President Trump presented a 20-point plan in his meeting at the White House with Prime Minister Netanyahu (but without the participation of any Palestinian votes) last month. So far, only the Israeli government and Hamas have agreed to the first phase of this plan. Although this first phase calls for ending the war, releasing Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, and increasing aid, it does not define a workable structure for how Gaza will be governed or rebuilt. It also does not provide for the entry of the international security force stipulated in the twenty-point plan to assume security responsibilities from Hamas forces.

There is reason to worry that Trump’s deal may collapse at the end of the first phase. This would leave Gaza divided in two: the urban and coastal areas of Gaza from which Israel withdrew would remain under Hamas rule, and would lack the resources needed to begin reconstruction. The remaining 53% of Gaza will remain under Israeli occupation, and Israeli forces will likely resume periodic attacks against what they consider Hamas infrastructure.

This is a recipe for disaster. The clearest lesson to be drawn from the October 7 attacks is that Netanyahu’s previous approach to Gazans – locking them outside a series of barriers and avoiding any real peace process – was not only a moral failure, but a strategic failure as well. The use of military force alone, without diplomatic efforts to deal with any of the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, means continued growth of grievance and anger among the Palestinian public. No barrier, no matter how large, high-tech or sophisticated, can hold people back forever.

How do we avoid stumbling at the end of the first stage?

In the same way, we have reached the first stage: coordinated and sustained international pressure on Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Trump’s 20-point plan did not emerge from scratch at the White House last month. It was a restatement of ideas that had been circulating in formal and Track II negotiations for at least a year, including the recent Franco-Saudi plan.

The White House plan took shape in the wake of the failed Israeli attempt to assassinate Hamas officials in Qatar in early September. That’s when administration officials began working seriously with the Qataris to put an end to the war.

Trump did what he does best: he pressured Prime Minister Netanyahu to approve the plan and made clear that any Israeli violations of its spirit would not be tolerated. The Qataris – along with other regional leaders – exerted similar pressure on Hamas leaders.

This deal, although limited and fragile, opens a door that has been closed for too long. It is possible that this section will lead, with a great deal of effort, to real peace based on the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But to get through that door, we need to see Israeli and Palestinian leaders follow through on their commitments and continue to agree on a program that can create a better future for their people — even when that progress conflicts with their own political interests.