It is not surprising that Donald Trump continues to praise his deal surrounding Gaza as a “start of a grand concord and lasting harmony” between Israel and its neighbors. He added, “The forces of chaos, terror, and ruin that have plagued the region for decades now stand weakened, isolated, and totally defeated.” Well, between “weakened,” as they probably are, and “totally defeated,” there is quite a decisive difference. Yet, amid all the criticism of Trump's exaggerated praise of himself, we should still acknowledge that the agreement itself marks a significant achievement - if, and it’s a big if, those terms ever turn into reality.
Will There Be Disarmament on Both Sides?
First of all, Hamas is still present, and hopefully can be disarmed, at least when it comes to heavy weapons. But even that is far from guaranteed. For now, Hamas continues to play the security card, and since no one else is taking responsibility for security, they have some arguments for fulfilling that role. The key question, however, is whether Hamas can transform itself into a “normal” political party. At the very least, they could ask some sincere and pragmatic members within their ranks to work for the well-being of Gaza's citizens instead of promoting terrorism, which, as we know, leads to the death of thousands of Palestinians. When the last legitimate elections resulted in Hamas's victory, the movement included such people, and I had the opportunity to meet several of them. Unfortunately, under pressure from the Israeli government, they were not recognized by the EU or national government officials as legitimate representatives of the people who had elected them, a rather strange concept of democracy from Western political leaders.
Also on the Israeli side, there are still a lot of people - especially in the Israeli government - who do not like to “disarm” either militarily or ideologically. They look for any chance to start bombing again, and most importantly, they are continuing to take Palestinian land in the West Bank area. The ongoing eviction of Palestinians from their own territory and land could be a critical stumbling block for the implementation of the peace plan. As Aaron David Miller, a well-known US expert on the Middle East, writes in The New York Times - International Edition (16.10.2025): “ As long as Israel pursues its annexationist policies in the West Bank, the agreement cannot offer a credible path to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
In addition, it is not yet confirmed if Netanyahu sees his plan of total control over Gaza ultimately defeated by Trump's plan. Shira Efron speaks in The New York Times - International Edition (14th of October): “Netanyahu doesn’t get it that he lost”, of “ a necessary and blessed defeat of this government’s messianic vision.” Of course, the same can be said about the messianic dream of Hamas. So, on both sides, there must be people still thinking about continuing their destructive policies.
Even if Netanyahu and the terrorist leadership of Hamas would, for the time being, see their visions defeated, the question still stands, whether they are able and willing to accept this defeat? Are there leaders on both sides who are able and willing to take responsibility for implementing Trump's plan and effectively fill it with content? Are they willing to defend this plan in difficult times and against violent opponents in their own ranks? Without ownership on both sides, it simply will not work, even if witnesses and supporters from the outside are willing to stay on board. And with this, we come to an essential part of Trump's plan: its regional and international partners. This is probably the most decisive “if”.
The plan can only lead to peace if international partners put sufficient pressure on both sides, especially their radical representatives. In this respect, Stephen M. Walt, a columnist for Foreign Policy who remians rather skeptical, writes (15.10 2025): “Outside powers have have often been willing to press the warring parties to stop fighting temporarily…..but they have never been willing to invest sufficient time, attention and capital and to use the full leverage at their disposal to achieve a fair and lasting settlement.” Will it be different this time? We can only hope.
The International Guarantors
As mentioned, the present peace plan is not the first to involve international engagement. Yet it is the first to show such a strong willingness to accompany and to oversee the various stages of its implementation. This is what was particularly missing in the Oslo Accords signed in 1993. As Amr Hamzawy writes in his Foreign Affairs article (14.10.2025) under the title “Why Gradualism Can Help in Gaza”: “In the end, the Oslo accords largely failed not because they envisioned a gradual process but because that process was not sufficiently supported by the kinds of mechanisms, incentives, and pressure needed for success.” Some still say the critical issue with the Trump plan is the agreement on different phases, with some vagueness about timing and content. Sure, this is a weakness, but not all the relevant issues can be resolved at the beginning of the process. The process must be gradual, with each stage defined and refined throughout implementation.
The most essential condition for the plan’s success is the continued commitment of all the partners who signed the agreement. Of course, it will not be easy to keep the attention of such an erratic President like Donald Trump. But perhaps his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Steve Witkoff - and possibly even Tony Blair - will pressure Trump to stay focused on implementing his plan.
Moreover, it is crucial that Turkey and Arab countries remain patient and engaged, which is far from guaranteed. As one of the most experienced US experts for the Middle East, Dennis Ross writes in Foreign Affairs (24.10.2025) in his article “How to End the War in Gaza for Good”: “Arab countries have historically exploited the Palestinian issue as a political slogan but have taken little interest in solving it. They have viewed the conflict as the responsibility of the United States and Israel.” This attitude must be changed radically.
International Engagement for Conflict Resolution
International involvement in resolving bilateral conflicts can indeed be decisive. Recently, Megan K. Stack, a very knowledgeable journalist, wrote in The New York Times - International Edition (6.10.2025) an article titled “Northern Ireland, Gaza and the road to Peace”. She highlighted the pivotal role Tony Blair played in preparing the Good Friday Agreement, alongside President Clinton and former U.S. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell. It was Clinton who, against the advice of his own cabinet, invited the leader of the terrorist IRA, Gerry Adams, to the White House. As Megan K.Stack notes: “It was a high-risk, game-changing act of diplomacy.”
Similarly, former Kosovo Foreign Minister, Petrit Selimi, argues in The Economist (4.10.2025) in that direction in the article “Kosovo Shows that Donald Trump’s Gaza Plan Can Work”: “ Even though the parallels are not perfect- Kosovo exists on the edges of the EU, whose rich, peaceful and democratic countries are all keen to see it succeed - Mr. Trumps Gaza Plan has echoes of this tested model…..The interim mission in Kosovo quickly combined the legitimacy of international figures and organizations with the knowledge and buy-in of local leaders of all political stripes.”
And the European Union?
Some argue that one more crucial international actor is missing. Yes, it would have been both wise and appropriate to invite the European Union to be part of the deal and invite it to sign the agreement. But neither Trump nor Netanyahu was interested in sharing the, hopefully, successful outcome or credit with the Europeans. It is a short-sighted decision, but a fact nonetheless. Europe should not dwell on this exclusion or react with offense. Its time will come when the parties eventually need European investors and taxpayers. Europeans should avoid rushing into frantic activism and instead engage when asked, and when it makes sense. After all, Europe has invested so much money in the past, but again and again, European investments were ultimately destroyed by Hamas’s terrorism and Israeli bombs. Still, Europe should strive to help bring the plan to fruition, even if it bears Trump’s name. Europe has a vital interest in seeing the path from a peace deal to actual peace itself. Perhaps, one day, even Donald Trump will turn to the Europeans for help in realizing his plan.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.