Trump’s Bold Claim: End of the Gaza War and a New Ceasefire
US President Donald Trump publicly declared that the two-year Gaza war has “ended” as part of a newly negotiated ceasefire framework. He asserted that the remaining hostages would be released on Monday or Tuesday as a first phase of the deal, signaling a potential turning point after years of brutal fighting and humanitarian crises. The president described the breakthrough as a lasting, perhaps even “everlasting,” peace, and indicated plans to travel to Egypt for an official signing ceremony to cement the agreement.
The remarks came amid intense scrutiny of US mediation efforts and ahead of the Nobel Peace Prize announcement, with Trump presenting himself as a broker of multiple recent peace efforts around the world. He asserted progress on a plan that, in his words, would remove the threat of renewed conflict and bring closure to families affected by abductions, casualties, and displacement.
What the Deal Entails: Hostages, Prisoners, and Governance
Key elements of the announced framework reportedly include the phased release of hostages held in Gaza in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli custody. The negotiations, conducted through indirect talks in Egypt and guided by a so-called 20-point peace plan, center on disarming militant factions and placing post-war Gaza under a transitional administration. A central feature touted by Trump is a “Board of Peace” to oversee Gaza’s administration, with the president himself in a leading role. Critics, however, have questioned the feasibility and legitimacy of such a governance mechanism and warned of the risks of external control over an occupied territory.
Hamas Rejection: The Board of Peace Concept Faces Resistance
Hamas quickly rejected the idea of a Board of Peace that would place Gaza under a transitional authority chaired by the US president. A senior Hamas official, Osama Hamdan, told Al Araby Television Network that no Palestinian faction would accept external supervision of their affairs, and that both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority were united in their opposition to this framework. The rift underscores enduring tensions about sovereignty, self-determination, and the role of international actors in post-conflict governance.
Regional and International Reactions
Analysts note that while a ceasefire and hostage releases could relieve humanitarian pressures and create space for diplomacy, real peace will hinge on how the post-conflict order is actually implemented on the ground. Egypt’s involvement as the venue for an official signing signals regional interest in stabilizing the situation, but observers warn that durable peace requires credible protection for civilians, reliable enforcement of commitments, and transparent governance that enjoys broad legitimacy among Palestinians and Israelis alike.
What Comes Next: Timing, Verification, and Potential Roadblocks
With hostages set to be released in the coming days, verification mechanisms and monitoring will be critical. International observers and humanitarian groups will be watching for adherence to timelines, access for aid deliveries, and the safety of civilians. The prospect of a formal signing in Egypt adds a ceremonial layer to the process, but the true test lies in how the transitional authority operates and whether key stakeholders on the ground will accept the arrangement without sacrificing their core demands for freedom, dignity, and security.
Bottom Line: A Moment of Possible Change or a Delicate Pause?
Trump’s assertion of ending the Gaza war marks a dramatic moment in Middle East diplomacy, contingent on tangible actions in the days ahead. The hostages’ release and the formal signing will be visible indicators of progress, but the enduring question remains: can a governance framework under an international board meet the aspirations of Palestinians for sovereignty and Israelis’ security concerns? As negotiations continue, the international community will closely monitor follow-through, hoping that this turn toward diplomacy outlasts past cycles of ceasefires that collapsed under political pressure and mistrust.
