Cease fire by any name

In a twist few could have predicted even weeks ago, U.S. President Donald Trump has managed what seemed impossible- securing Hamas’s agreement to release all remaining hostages, disarm, step aside for the Palestinian Authority, and witness Israel’s withdrawal from most parts of Gaza. Even more astounding is the fact that world leaders sign a Gaza peace deal-a document that could set the stage for peace, but whose fragility is as thin as the paper it is penned on. For both Gazans and Israelis, the ceasefire comes as a welcome respite from a conflict that has raged for two years, leaving behind untold devastation and exhaustion. Families have endured grief, economic ruin, and displacement on a scale that defies comprehension. The announcement, therefore, has sparked relief and cautious optimism across the region. Yet, while many rightly hail Trump as a “champion of peace in Gaza,” it would be premature to declare the conflict resolved. Hamas’s compliance, for instance, was forced by the threat of complete destruction. The militant group had reached a point where capitulation was the only option short of annihilation. True peace cannot be ensured without dismantling the broader network of forces that funnel instability into the region. Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Qatar have each played proactive roles in encouraging or sustaining hostility toward Israel and the United States. Unless these external drivers of militant activity are addressed, the peace deal may prove short-lived. It is noteworthy that certain Muslim nations-among them Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt-have refrained from direct military support for Hamas, even as they voice sympathy for the Palestinian cause. Their restraint hints at the possibility of galvanizing the Arab world toward a more durable peace plan, one in which violent actions targeting Israel are expressly discouraged by regional powers themselves. Yet peace cannot rest on nonviolence alone; it also demands confronting the complex historical and cultural identities embedded in the idea of “Palestine.” It is a fact that Palestinians today include Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians, and Israelis, among others. Even the name “Palestine,” with roots in the Roman era, was coined as ‘Palaestina’ to provoke the hostile Jewish populace. This name referenced the Philistines, ancient seafarers from Crete who once fought Israel but vanished long ago from the region. Over centuries, diverse communities settled in these lands, making any notion of a singular “Palestinian identity” far more complicated than political slogans suggest. Critically, the geopolitical dispute over Israel’s presence in its historic homeland has driven its opponents to frame their struggle as a righteous mission to expel Jews from the region. This framing fuels both ideological fervor and practical resistance to coexistence. Breaking that narrative-and replacing it with recognition of Israel’s legitimacy-is pivotal. Arab nations must acknowledge the Jewish state’s right to exist and commit to fostering peaceful relations between Israel and Palestinian residents. Without such recognition, treaties and accords will remain vulnerable to the same cycles of mistrust and violence that have plagued the Middle East for generations. The Gaza peace deal, therefore, is less of an ending than a tentative beginning. Its implementation will require political courage, regional cooperation, and the dismantling of entrenched narratives that justify perpetual hostility. If the Arab world can pivot from resistance to reconciliation, the brittle agreement could evolve into a foundation for genuine and lasting peace. Until then, celebration should be tempered with vigilance.