The Economist: Gaza deal faces major hurdles over lack of trust and insistence on disarming Hamas

The Economist said a diplomatic breakthrough in Gaza could be “a new beginning for the Middle East” after two years of atrocities and endless rounds of killing in Gaza. In its lead editorial and on the cover of its new issue this week, it noted that many US presidents have worked to secure a breakthrough in the intractable Israel–Palestine conflict. Now, two years after the Oct. 7 attacks, Donald Trump has joined the short list of those who have succeeded.

The magazine added that the preliminary deal between Israel and Hamas for a ceasefire and prisoner releases opens up a new vision for the Middle East. It described the opening as narrow, but said it remains the best chance for lasting peace since the Oslo accords of 1993 and 1995. The current vision, however, differs radically from the moribund Oslo approach: rather than endless negotiations about maps and hypothetical constitutional arrangements for “two states,” it promises a practical approach in which Gaza is governed and rebuilt and the militants who once controlled it are removed.

The Economist said Israelis and Palestinians believe they have more to gain from coexistence than from destroying one another. Success would be less about a White House celebration and more about cement mixers turning for a decade in Gaza, reining in violent settlers in the West Bank, the fading of the rocket threat, and ordinary people—slowly and increasingly—believing in a safer, more prosperous future. The magazine called the peace deal a victory for Trump’s transactional, bullying style of diplomacy.

The development followed meetings in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, with negotiators from the United States, Egypt, Qatar and Turkey ready to apply pressure. Details were not yet announced, but Hamas is due to release the 20 Israeli prisoners still alive, in return for a reciprocal release of Palestinian prisoners by Israel, a flow of aid, and a partial withdrawal of the Israeli occupation army from Gaza’s major cities, to what Trump called a “line agreed upon.”

Under Trump’s 20-point plan, the next phase would establish a technocratic government to rebuild Gaza while excluding Hamas from power; Hamas would be disarmed and security provided by an international force. Trump would chair a supervisory council until Palestinians assume responsibility, perhaps under a Palestinian (custodial) authority. The ultimate aim is what Trump calls “permanent peace” between Israel and all Palestinian territories, but the obstacles to progress are immense, the magazine says.

Negotiators on both sides still have to resolve disagreements, for example over disarming Hamas. They may agree now while plotting to undermine progress later. With an estimated 78 percent of Gaza’s buildings damaged and few industries left, reconstruction could stall. More importantly, ordinary Israelis and Palestinians have lost faith in the possibility of peace.

After 30 years of Oslo and the events of Oct. 7, most Israeli Jews now view the Palestinian territories as a quasi‑failed state. In 2012, 61 percent of Israelis supported a two‑state solution; now perhaps only a quarter do, and many display a chilling indifference to the loss of Palestinian lives.

Palestinians, for their part, see Israel as a rogue state committed to occupying their land and routinely unleashing violence. In a May poll, 50 percent of Palestinians supported the Oct. 7 attacks, 87 percent denied that Hamas committed atrocities, and 41 percent endorsed armed resistance.

Nonetheless, there are reasons for hope, The Economist says. The end of the war could change leadership on both sides, convincing or forcing remnants of Hamas to forgo any formal role in a Gaza government. Polls suggest Israeli elections could remove Benjamin Netanyahu from office and end his coalition with far‑right parties.

The magazine adds that prospects have improved externally. Around the world the focus has shifted to peace after years of neglect. The United States now has a president unafraid to press Israel hard, and the willingness of Gulf states not only to pay for Gaza’s reconstruction but also to support the peace process—and potentially help provide security—is a major step forward. This is a positive development, the magazine says, because outside parties will have to curb the destructive impulses on both sides.

After pressing Israel to end the war, rebuking it over strikes on Qatar and pushing it into a prisoner swap, Trump must now press Netanyahu or his successor to curb settlement expansion. He should support Palestinian institutions by preventing Israel from withholding customs revenue and by blocking measures that enable vigilante violence by settlers and soldiers.

The magazine believes Gaza is the key. Palestinians everywhere will want to know whether Israel can commit to allowing a technocratic government to be formed in the strip with international backing. Israelis, for their part,
will watch whether Palestinians in Gaza can govern themselves better and reform institutions, and no one should imagine this will be easy.

But the traits that enabled Trump to secure a ceasefire—his readiness to bully, to escalate and to create an urgent sense of need—are different from the long‑term commitment over many years that his role as head of a reconstruction authority would require. Nevertheless, in a region that has known only decades of conflict, this is an extraordinary moment: a slim but real chance for a new beginning.