Trump’s brokered peace in Gaza

The Trump-brokered 20-point ceasefire between Israel and Hamas marks one of the most decisive moments in the long, brutal saga of the Gaza conflict. Whether it holds or not, it has already exposed two stark realities: the effectiveness of Donald Trump’s force-backed diplomacy and the utter impotence of the United Nations in confronting terror-driven violence masquerading as resistance. For years, the UN has repeatedly failed to address the root causes of the Israel-Gaza conflict. It has issued countless resolutions, held endless debates, and dispatched envoys who achieved little beyond symbolic gestures. Even as Gaza burned and rockets rained on Israeli cities, the UN remained trapped in its own web of bureaucracy and moral confusion. Instead of taking a firm stance against Hamas’s terror tactics-its use of civilians as human shields and hospitals as weapons depots-the UN has too often chosen the easier path- condemning Israel while turning a blind eye to the militants who provoke the bloodshed. Had the UN taken a clear stand against all forms of violence and not only the Israeli bombing on Gaza but also Hamas hijacking UN food relief by masquerading as civilians, the deaths of thousands could have been prevented. In stark contrast, U.S. President Donald Trump has adopted a strategy that blends bluntness with decisive power. His message to Hamas was unambiguous: accept the ceasefire or face annihilation. His warning, backed by America’s military might and Israel’s readiness for a full-scale offensive, carried the weight of action-not rhetoric. For all his flaws, Trump understands a harsh truth that the UN still refuses to acknowledge: in dealing with terror networks, moral appeals and press statements achieve nothing; only the credible threat of force compels change. Critics in the West-liberals, human rights lobbies, and left-leaning media-may dismiss Trump’s methods as coercive or crude, but they cannot deny that his intervention brought the warring sides to the table. Even if Hamas agreed under duress, the outcome is undeniable-a cessation of hostilities, however temporary, that offers a glimmer of hope for Gaza’s war-weary civilians. The tragedy, of course, lies in Gaza itself. Nearly two million people have endured unending bombardments and deprivation, their homes and livelihoods obliterated. Yet their greatest oppressors are not only the bombs from above but also the rulers within-Hamas operatives who exploit them as shields and symbols. Here again, the UN’s silence is deafening. Its agencies rush in with food, tents, and sympathy, but rarely do they confront the moral perversion that sustains Hamas’s rule. As the ceasefire takes effect, the UN now faces a test of its own credibility. Will it simply deliver aid and hold photo-op briefings, or will it finally take a principled stand against those who perpetuate conflict in the name of liberation? Will it differentiate between the human rights of innocent civilians and the manipulative rhetoric of terror apologists? Trump’s diplomacy may be brash, even unsettling, but it has accomplished more in weeks than the UN has in decades. Until the UN sheds its timidity and moral duplicity, it will remain a spectator to crises it was meant to resolve- while leaders like Trump, for all their controversy, seize the initiative to act where others merely talk.