Fragile Peace, High-stakes Gamble: How Trump-brokered Pact Ended Gaza War

After months of bombardment, displacement, and unrelenting human loss, fragile calm returned to Gaza on Monday, as the guns have hopefully finally fallen silent in a region long defined by recurring violence.  Emmanuel Addeh writes that beneath the public declarations and handshakes, the Donald Trump-brokered deal will test the durability of new alliances, the sincerity of political pledges, and the world’s resolve to move from ceasefire to genuine peace.

On Monday, the final living hostages walked free and world leaders gathered on a stage in Sharm el-Sheikh. The headlines called it an end to the Gaza war. Families reunited, delegates applauding, and leaders promising a new order of security and governance in Gaza.

Beneath the ceremony, however, were tangled bargains, unresolved political fault lines and a cast of regional actors whose interests will determine whether the deal will remain a durable settlement or a temporary truce.

The Deal

At its core, the agreement signed in Egypt on October 13, established a multi-stage ceasefire, coordinated prisoner exchanges, and a roadmap for limited governance and humanitarian access in Gaza. It committed Hamas to hand over remaining living hostages and to cede administrative control of civilian institutions to an interim Palestinian technocratic authority, while stopping short of disarming the group fully.

 Israel pledged phased withdrawals of some forces, the release of thousands of Palestinian detainees, and permission for significantly expanded humanitarian corridors into the Gaza Strip. Crucially, the pact included a set of security guarantees, outside monitoring and a promise by a coalition of regional states and international agencies to support reconstruction and stabilization efforts.

The text combined concrete operational steps, including lists of hostages and prisoners, timelines, and logistical arrangements for transfer and medical checks, but with vague political commitments around postwar governance.

In practice that meant the deal traded clarity on immediate humanitarian and human-security outcomes for ambiguity about long-term political questions: whether Gaza would remain under Hamas influence, who would provide lasting security, and the shape of Palestinian political representation going forward. Those unresolved items are the fault lines that many warn could reopen the conflict if not addressed.

But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told lawmakers in the Knesset that he’s “committed to this peace”.  “Today, the Jewish calendar marks the end of two years of war,” he said.

Trump Factor

Donald Trump’s reappearance as a key mediator surprised many seasoned regional diplomats, but in the weeks before the Sharm el-Sheikh summit he had been intensively engaged in shuttle diplomacy, convening Arab leaders, coordinating with Israeli officials and working with mediators in Cairo and Doha to produce a workable exchange mechanism.

Trump framed the initiative as a personal achievement and as an extension of the Abraham Accords diplomacy he championed in his earlier term, arguing that a deal that secured hostages and opened a pathway to broader regional normalisation was both a humanitarian and geopolitical victory. His public messaging, “a new beautiful day” was designed to emphasise rapid results and a decisive role for Washington in shaping outcomes.

That visibility had two effects. On one hand, Trump brought diplomatic energy and a set of partners willing to sign onto public guarantees. On the other hand, his unorthodox style and the perception of transactional, image-driven brokering created skepticism among diplomats who feared that headline deals risked papering over deeper political problems.

For Israel, Trump’s involvement offered both leverage and political cover; for many Arab states, public alignment with the deal allowed them to be seen as constructive mediators while preserving diplomatic flexibility on sensitive issues such as recognition and the broader Palestinian question.

“A new and beautiful day is rising and now the rebuilding begins,” said Trump, praising regional leaders who helped cement the truce between Israel and Hamas.

Earlier, in his address to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, the president told cheering lawmakers that “the long and painful nightmare is finally over”.

Israel released 250 Palestinian prisoners and more than 1,700 other Palestinians detained during the two-year military operations in Gaza in exchange for the last 20 living Israeli hostages held by Hamas.

Why It Mattered

The signing in Egypt drew a broad and unusual coalition. Egypt, Turkey and Qatar acted as immediate mediators, with Cairo as the traditional regional backstop and Doha as an interlocutor with Hamas. Gulf states, including the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain which had long-standing normalisation ties to Israel, lent political weight and pledged reconstruction aid.

Besides, Jordan and other Arab governments attended as guarantors of security arrangements and as stakeholders in any future Palestinian governance framework. European and international agencies offered monitoring and humanitarian assurances.

Israel and representatives of Palestinian factions, formally or indirectly, were the principal parties to the exchange, with commitments from multiple guarantors to monitor compliance and to support reconstruction. The joint presence of such diverse signatories conveyed a political seriousness that past informal understandings had lacked.

But the list of signees masked important absences and reservations. Some states insisted that their participation did not equate to recognition of any long-term political settlement, and several key regional powers remained cautious about endorsing terms that appeared to preserve Hamas’s military capacity. Russia, for instance, has a different regional posture and was uneasy about exclusion from the core negotiating table.

Iran, as Hamas’s principal backer, publicly criticised the deal and warned against a settlement that would marginalise Palestinian demands. Those geopolitical divergences will shape implementation, since guarantors’ willingness to push hard on compliance depends on their own strategic priorities.

Hostage Releases, Human Stories

Israel released large numbers of Palestinian detainees and allowed the exit of thousands of Gazans from detention as part of reciprocal steps. The exchanges involved the release of nearly 2,000 Palestinian detainees in return for several dozen living hostages and the return of the remains of many others, details that sparked both relief and anger for those who saw the balance as too costly or too limited.

Behind those statistics were wrenching personal narratives. Families of released captives described long years of uncertainty, trauma and public campaigning. Some freed hostages appeared physically and psychologically fragile after prolonged captivity; others, including those rescued earlier by special operations, became public advocates for remaining detainees.

For Palestinians, the released prisoners often returned to scenes of celebration, but for Israelis who had lost loved ones the exchange deepened political debate about whether the concessions were justified.

Freed hostages have now reunited with their families in Israel and Palestine, following their release from captivity. The last 20 living hostages held by Hamas in Gaza are now back in Israel after more than two years in captivity.

Regional Guarantors

If the deal’s first phase focused on immediate humanitarian outcomes and security de-escalation, its second phase hinged on reconstruction and the shape of governance in Gaza. Arab states and international organizations pledged to finance reconstruction, re-establish civilian services and help rebuild an economy shattered by years of blockade and repeated conflicts.

Egypt’s role has been especially central. Cairo enforced buffer-zone security requirements, hosted talks, and promised to coordinate cross-border aid flows. Qatar retained influence by channeling funds and political outreach to Gaza’s local authorities.

The Gulf states offered money and technical support but were cautious about underwriting a long-term political arrangement that left Hamas’s military capability intact. European donors conditioned much of their assistance on safeguards against diversion of funds to rearmament and on clear, transparent administrative mechanisms.

Security Guarantees, Disarmament Question

Central to Israel’s acceptance of any pause in hostilities was the notion that Gaza could not remain a springboard for future attacks. The agreement therefore included language on demilitarised zones, weapons inspections and third-party monitoring.

In practice, however, disarmament proved the thorniest issue. Hamas agreed to cede administrative control but stopped short of unconditional disarmament; Israel insisted on verifiable processes to prevent re-armament. That asymmetry left a persistent gap: the deal provided mechanisms to monitor and report violations, but it relied heavily on the political will of guarantors to press for enforcement.

Those enforcement mechanisms had realistic limits. Monitoring teams can observe and report, but without credible and unified pressure from regional guarantors, including those with leverage over Hamas, violations are difficult to deter. Moreover, clandestine rearming and local actor fragmentation complicate any straightforward verification.

Political Fallouts

In Israel, the agreement produced a sharp domestic debate. For some it represented the pragmatic recovery of hostages and a step towards ending a draining war that had cost thousands of lives and resources.

For others it was a capitulation: critics argued that releasing large numbers of prisoners and accepting an administration without explicit disarmament rewarded violence and endangered Israeli citizens. Political fallout included renewed scrutiny of Israel’s leadership and the security establishment and triggered protests from those who regarded the deal as an unacceptable compromise.

Among Palestinians there were equally mixed reactions. Many Gazans welcomed the easing of hostilities and the prospect of reconstruction and freed detainees. But rival Palestinian factions and activists questioned whether the deal structurally addressed the occupation, blockade, and the lack of sovereignty.

 For many in the West Bank and among the diaspora the agreement felt partial: it improved immediate conditions in Gaza but did not tackle the larger question of Palestinian national rights, statehood and settlements.

Role of Outside Powers

The Sharm el-Sheikh deal crystallised a new pattern of great-power and regional competition. The United States, through the Trump team, reasserted a very visible, personalised role in Middle East peacemaking. European states played supporting roles, primarily in humanitarian and donor coordination.

Turkey and Iran criticised or opposed elements of the agreement, seeing it as a US-led arrangement that did not address core Palestinian demands or Iran’s strategic interests. Russia watched and weighed opportunities to expand its influence where Western leverage waned.

Besides, the Gulf states’ involvement signaled an important shift: they were willing to be visible guarantors of a settlement even as they calibrated their steps on normalisation with Israel. Their participation effectively tied reconstruction finance to regional politics and to an incrementalist strategy for integrating Israel more broadly into the Arab world.

The calculus for each Gulf capital was distinct, balancing security concerns, domestic opinion and strategic rivalry with Iran making their long-term commitment less predictable than the ceremony in Sharm suggested.

World Leaders React

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el Sisi co-chaired the summit alongside Trump and welcomed the accord as “a milestone that must be safeguarded.” Cairo said it would continue coordination with Qatar, Türkiye, and the US to ensure full implementation of the deal and facilitate the next phase of peacebuilding.

Cairo hailed the Sharm El-Sheikh Peace Summit, as consolidating “the path to peace” by supporting the 9 October Gaza agreement.

Also, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan joined the summit and signed the peace agreement in the Red Sea city of Sharm El-Sheikh. Turkish Parliament Speaker Numan Kurtulmus said Ankara’s “greatest wish” was for the bloodshed to end and a permanent ceasefire to take root.

In Qatar, Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani hailed the “positive results” of the Sharm El-Sheikh Peace Summit, saying it marked a new step toward unity and stability. “We hope the summit will serve as a launchpad for future understandings that meet the hopes of our brothers in Gaza,” he said on X.

French President Emmanuel Macron hailed the ceasefire as “a historic day for the hostages, their families, the Israeli people, and the Palestinian people,” urging the world to “prepare for what comes next together with humility.”

Similarly, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said Italy is now “closer to recognising the State of Palestine” after the Gaza agreement. “If the plan is implemented, Italy’s recognition of Palestine will certainly be closer,” she said in Sharm El-Sheikh.

Implementation Risks, Potential Spoilers

No agreement of this complexity survives without rigorous implementation. The most immediate risks were military flareups due to misunderstandings or localised violence; the slow and contentious process of prisoner-list verification; and disputes over the return of remains, which had already produced heated public reactions and deadlines.

Politically motivated provocations by hardline Israeli factions opposed to the deal, Palestinian militants unhappy with their perceived marginalisation, or external actors seeking to exploit divisions could quickly unravel fragile trust.

The deal’s dependence on third-party guarantors compounded the problem: if any major guarantor wavered, the enforcement architecture could become toothless. This appeared to be the case yesterday when some Palestinians were killed.

Another risk lay in reconstruction itself. Aid diversion, corruption, or delays could fuel frustration and undermine the credibility of the international community. If humanitarian goods failed to reach intended recipients, or if rebuilding projects favoured certain factions, grievances would deepen.

In conflict-torn environments, poorly planned reconstruction can become a source of renewed instability rather than a foundation for peace.

What Next: Stabilisation or Relapse

The peace deal remains very fragile. There are several plausible trajectories. The optimistic path sees guarantors enforcing the agreement, reconstruction stabilizing daily life, and political processes gradually addressing governance so that Hamas’s political role is transformed into nonmilitary forms of influence. In that scenario, the deal becomes a stepping stone to a wider, if incremental, political settlement and possible expansions of Arab-Israel normalization that tie benefits to compliance.

A more pessimistic path involves partial implementation, localised violence and political erosion. Without credible disarmament or unified pressure from guarantors, clandestine rearming and intermittent attacks could restart a cycle of reprisals. Political stalemate over governance, the status of prisoners not included in initial lists, and the fate of Palestinian political aspirations could harden into long-term instability with recurrent violence.

Between those extremes is a protracted stalemate: Low-level stability punctuated by periodic crises, a humanitarian plateau but an unresolved political horizon.

Tradeoffs:  Political Cost of Saving Lives 

One of the most uncomfortable debates the agreement raised was moral. That is to what extent should a state trade large numbers of captive or detained persons for the return of living hostages? For many families, the question had a simple human answer: do everything possible to bring someone home.

For strategists and long-term planners, the calculus considered deterrence, future security costs and precedent. The deal forced societies to grapple with whether moral imperatives in crisis settings could or should be balanced against broader security concerns. That tension will continue to animate political deliberations and public discourse in Israel and beyond.

An Almost Impossible Deal

The Sharm el-Sheikh agreement achieved what seemed impossible to many: it secured the release of living hostages, allowed for massive prisoner exchanges, and created a multilateral architecture for rebuilding Gaza.

Those are tangible accomplishments that reduced immediate human suffering and created an opening for stabilisation. Yet the pact’s long-term promise depends on follow-through: sustained donor commitments, credible monitoring, unified pressure on arms proliferation, and a political process that moves beyond crisis management to address Palestinian aspirations.

If guarantors remain committed, if reconstruction reaches ordinary Gazans equitably, and if political space opens for non-violent Palestinian governance, the deal will be remembered as a turning point.

In Egypt, Trump was all smiles in the company of Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi and more than 20 other leaders from around the world. “Everybody’s happy,” Trump said, adding that he had done “big deals before” but “this has taken off like a rocket ship”.

“This took 3,000 years to get to this point, can you believe it? And it’s going to hold up too,” he said.

If, however, implementation falters or spoilers successfully reignite armed confrontation, the ceremony in Egypt will be recorded as a temporary ceasefire that papered over deeper, unresolved questions.

For now the world waits on mechanisms to translate a dramatic humanitarian breakthrough into the patient politics that real peace requires.