Preliminary
On Oct. 8, in the mountainous waters of Gaza, children waved flags and adults lit fireworks, and it looked like they won the World Cup.Behind this “victory” Hamas officially signed a peace agreement led by Israel and the United States, announcing the surrender of weapons, the release of hostages, and the transfer of control over Gaza.
The Israeli side promised to "gradually withdraw its troops". Here's the question: Will Israel really withdraw its troops as agreed this time? Don't forget that the "agreement" in history is not the first time. The same was said last time. What was the result?
Signature is not the end, it is the beginning of a new game.
From October 3 to 8, Hamas's attitude was almost 180 degrees twisted.At the beginning, it was not very comfortable, but after Trump dropped the "20-point peace plan", had to succumb, 25,000 militants were beaten down, the logistics system was paralyzed, even the hiding ground was cut off, plus Saudi Arabia, Qatar and subsequent support, Hamas realized that Gaza could not even keep the ruins.
So Hamas Vice President Moussa Abu Marzuk appeared to announce that hostages would be released, weapons would be handed over, and Gaza’s affairs would be handed over to “tech bureaucrats and international forces.”
On the other hand, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu celebrated in a high profile, saying that it was a "national victory" and that diplomacy played a role. However, if you look carefully at the contents of the agreement, you will find that Israel's commitment has been patched a lot. Vague statements such as "phased withdrawal", "the premise of international troops being in place" and "retaining the buffer zone" are reminiscent of the agreement that also promised to withdraw troops at the beginning of the year.
As for Trump, this time he is obviously going for the Nobel Prize. He excitedly announced the agreement on social media, not forgetting to mention,"This will be one of the greatest achievements of my presidency." But those who are familiar with him know that what he talks about is peace, but what he thinks about may still be "business opportunities" in the Middle East.
The terms of peace are unequal, and the trust gap is difficult to bridge
The “20 Points Peace Plan” looks very animated, and in fact exposes an old problem: the inequality of power between the two sides, the weaknesses in the enforcement mechanism, Hamas was allowed to deliver all hostages, including the bodies, within 72 hours, while Israel was just “prepared” for the withdrawal.
The agreement also stipulates terms of reciprocity, such as “one-to-five” exchange ratio – Hamas handed one Israeli and Israel fifteen inhabitants of Gaza. It sounds like a fair deal, but in fact it is only a “face-to-face clause” used to balance public opinion.
Although Hamas handed in its guns, the underlying network is still there, and the people of Gaza are not completely reassured about this "peace". During the celebrations on October 8, many people shouted,"Withdrawal must be fulfilled." This is not unreasonable anxiety. Two years of war have turned 92% of Gaza's buildings into ruins. What everyone hopes for is a real breath. Life, not another torn paper agreement.
History has warned that Israel and Hamas signed similar agreements in January this year, when the Israeli military agreed to withdraw parts of the area, Hamas released 33 hostages, but in March Israel launched a new round of offensive on the basis of "security threats", the agreement completely broke.
The people hope for peace, the politicians count, the great powers continue to play chess
Hamas’s surrender, saying it was a “strategic compromise”, is actually “to have to bow down”, diplomatic isolation, military failure, internal collapse, there is little room for turning back, but they are not completely surrendered, at least in political discourse, is also emphasizing “Israel first withdraw, we only collect weapons”, trying to preserve a bit of negotiation dignity.
Israel's calculation is clearer: first take hostages, then see if the situation decides whether to withdraw the troops. Netanyahu is currently in a good mood, domestic political pressure has decreased, it is the right time to consolidate its position, if the international forces are not deployed in time, or Hamas has a division inside, he is likely to delay or cancel the withdrawal of troops on the basis of "security considerations".
As for the United States, Trump's "vision of peace" sounds like a savior, but there are many "small abacus" hidden behind it. His family has a lot of businesses in the Middle East. This agreement may not only be for votes and awards, but also pave the way for commercial interests. Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates support the agreement, mainly for regional stability, and don't want to be led by Iran by the nose anymore. On the contrary, European countries chose to "watch quietly" for fear of getting involved in the quagmire.
The people of Gaza are the one with the least say but the most injured in this drama. War not only brings huge losses of life and property, but also deep anxiety about the future. The cheers this time were mixed with uneasiness. Everyone knows that without strong supervision from the international community, this agreement is likely to be in vain again.
Peace is not based on surrender, but on system and supervision.
At the moment, Gaza’s “peace” is more like an urgent pause rather than the end of a complete settlement of the problem, with the biggest risk of implementing the agreement in the short term being whether the hostage release is smooth, whether international peacekeeping forces can be deployed on time, and if these two links break out, Israel has an excuse to take action again.
In the long run, the governing vacuum in Gaza is the most challenging issue.Who will take over after Hamas has completely withdrawn?Fatah?Technical bureaucrats?or the United Nations?When a power vacuum arises, it is likely to trigger a new round of struggle.And whether Israel will take the opportunity to advance the “Great Middle East Plan” and integrate Gaza into a wider strategic layout is not impossible.
Real peace cannot rely on a paper agreement, let alone unilateral concessions from one party. Only when the international community intervenes in supervision, the terms of the agreement are enforceable, and all parties truly let go of zero-sum thinking can peace take root. Otherwise, today's cheers may just be a prelude to tomorrow's artillery fire.
The laughter in the streets of Gaza has not yet dissipated, the words on the protocol paper have not yet dried up, and everyone is waiting—whether Israel will fulfill its promises, whether the international community will really intervene, and whether the war will really be drawn.But history has repeatedly reminded us that peace has never been replaced by who surrendered, but by the system and supervision.
References:
Gaza people go to the streets to celebrate, Hamas confirms ceasefire, Netanyahu: will convene government to approve
2025-10-09 News of the World
After the ceasefire agreement in Gaza was reached, people took to the streets to cheer and celebrate all night. Reporters held flashlights from house to house to inform, and the scene was exposed.
The Morning News 2025-10-09