“Trump-Brokered Deal” the Key to Ending the Israel-Hamas War
Two years after the devastating 7 October attacks, a new round of indirect peace talks in Sharm el-Sheikh, brokered by Donald Trump, presents a critical—yet highly fragile—opportunity to end the war in Gaza. This analysis delves into the geopolitical pressures, domestic survival strategies of the key leaders (Netanyahu and the Hamas leadership), the leverage of the United States, and the complex details of the 20-point framework that could either secure a ceasefire and hostage release or collapse, leading to a grim continuation of the conflict.
The calendar’s grim symmetry is undeniable. Two years after the initial, traumatic Hamas attacks on Israel—an act of violence that killed approximately 1,200 people, predominantly civilians, and saw 251 taken hostage—the region teeters on the edge of a potential de-escalation. Today, indirect talks in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh offer a tenuous chance to achieve a ceasefire, secure the release of remaining Israeli hostages, and halt the killing in Gaza.
The scale of the conflict’s toll is staggering. Israel’s military response has resulted in the destruction of most of Gaza and, according to the Hamas-run health ministry (whose figures have historically been considered reliable), the deaths of over 66,000 Palestinians, including more than 18,000 children. This devastating kinetic conflict has now transitioned into a high-stakes diplomatic battle, largely driven by external pressure.
1. The Hamas Calculus: Survival as a Political Force While Israel has militarily broken Hamas as a coherent fighting force, reducing it to an urban insurgency, the group’s political objective is to secure its post-war survival. Hamas has reportedly agreed to surrender power to Palestinian technocrats and dismantle its heavy weapons. However, the core challenge remains: the Islamic Resistance Movement seeks to emerge with enough political capital and residual capacity to eventually “rebuild its capacity to live up to its name.” The negotiations, therefore, are an opportunity for political redemption in the face of military devastation.
2. Netanyahu’s Political Imperative: The Quest for ‘Total Victory’ For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the war is a battle for political life. His stated goal of “total victory”—defined as the return of all hostages, the destruction of Hamas, and the demilitarization of Gaza—is essential to ensuring his political longevity, postponing his corruption trial, and avoiding the historical epithet of the leader responsible for the 7 October security failure. Any deal must be successfully framed as a “total victory” to placate the ultranationalist factions propping up his coalition, many of whom harbor maximalist aims of expelling Palestinians and establishing Jewish settlements in Gaza.
The Decisive Factor: Trump’s Geopolitical Leverage
The negotiations are based on the Donald Trump 20-point Gaza peace plan, an outline designed not just to end the Gaza conflict but to facilitate a much larger “grand bargain” in the Middle East, specifically a normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia. This ambition has fundamentally changed the geopolitical dynamic.
The US as the Uncompromising Broker: Historically, past US administrations were perceived as reluctant to fully utilize the immense leverage stemming from Israel’s dependence on American military and diplomatic support. Trump, however, has demonstrated a willingness to apply decisive pressure. His forced apology from Netanyahu to Qatar’s prime minister—following a failed Israeli strike on the Hamas leadership in Doha—underscored this shift. The message is clear: Trump is prioritizing his geopolitical architecture over Netanyahu’s internal political needs.
Saudi Arabia’s Non-Negotiable Condition: The key roadblock to the grand bargain is Saudi Arabia, which has made it unequivocally clear: a normalization deal cannot proceed without a clear, irreversible path to an independent Palestinian state. Trump successfully forced Netanyahu to sign a document with a vague commitment to this possibility, a concession the Israeli premier immediately tried to ignore in public statements. This divergence remains the most significant stumbling block to a long-term resolution.
