At the Peace Summit, Trump announced the end of the Middle East war, saying a new era had begun.
The absence of Israel Hamas refused visaThere is a gap behind the peace declaration.
This peace declaration is not credible.
Trump is well aware of the importance of peace for votes.
Catch up with this topic and take a big move that can boost the support rate in a short time.
At the Middle East summit, he shouted “the end of war” and signed a symbolic peace declaration, as if it had been declared.
The document was referred to by the media as the “Gaza Agreement,” but the parties who were really involved in the war did not take it as a matter.
Hamas didn't sign it on the spot and there was a reason behind it.
The document's demands for disarmament, the surrender of administrative control, and the taking over of the city by international peacekeeping forces affect fundamental interests.
It is too idealistic to want to let the conflicting parties abolish their martial arts through a paper agreement.
Israel was simply absent from the summit, and nobody even sent it.
Although the government has approved a preliminary ceasefire, it is full of concerns about "withdrawing troops, relinquishing power, and rebuilding."
Domestic public opinion also does not support the transfer of initiative power to international institutions.
The people's opinion is encircled by the right-wing camp, the ceasefire has not yet been fully implemented, and it is too early to talk about peace construction.
During a speech in the Israeli parliament, Trump publicly shouted, “A new era has begun,” a statement that sounds like an anticipation.
But many members in the audience stood on coldly, and no one applauded.
In the end, the declaration is more like an international public relations action than a solution to a problem.
Although the declaration is signed, most of the names come from external heads of state.
The United States hopes to use UNHCR to shape its influence, but the documents do not specify the technical route for the ceasefire, the mechanism for oversight of the hostage exchange, and the specific preparation of the peacekeeping forces.
Without these, it is easy to wrangle about implementation.
Many media directly pointed out that this declaration lacks substantive binding force.
There is neither legal effect nor punishment mechanism.
Neither Israel nor Hamas assumes any obligations, and the agreement must be implemented conscientiously.
Under this structure, even if the word is more beautiful, it cannot withstand the test of reality.
From the perspective of diplomatic operations, Trump first announced “success” and essentially wanted to dominate public opinion.
He is trying to make himself the end of the Middle East problem, not only making a statue of himself, but also paving the way for a domestic campaign.
The problem is that if the declaration fails, it will not only not solve the problem, but may also be seen as interfering with a more practical diplomatic process.
The current situation explains everything.
The conflict didn't really stop, gunfire sounded occasionally, and refugees were still displaced.
The Israeli military continued to deploy, and Hamas did not disarm.
A single piece of paper cannot replace peace, and peace is never called out by slogans, nor can it be completed by a high-profile summit.
After all, the peace declaration itself is not a small problem.
The content space, the terms are too blank, the signatories are not representative, and it looks like a symbolic show.
If peace really wants to land, it has to go back to the negotiating table and grind down details, instead of relying on one person standing on the stage to announce the end.
This peace is unreliable, and its roots are not just in one side
The war in the Middle East has long gone beyond the conflict between Hamas and Israel.
The situation is complicated, and the peace process is destined to not end with a paper declaration.
Trump’s high-profile intervention did not solve the problem, but instead made the rhythm more chaotic.
Trump has also previously proposed Gaza governance proposals and said that the United States will take the lead in establishing a transitional government.
The plan was rejected by the countries of the Middle East.
Without coordinating regional interests, jumping directly over local negotiation mechanisms and entangled from top to bottom in a “American approach” is nothing more than interfering with sovereignty.
Prior to the peace declaration, Egypt, Qatar and Turkey had been mediating.
Many of the preliminary ceasefire frameworks were mediated by these countries, and as a result, Trump suddenly opened up, packaging the results to dominate the United States.
This approach makes the previously fragile trust mechanisms more sensitive.
Hamas’s attitude is not a complete rejection of peace, but there are a lot of underlying issues that can’t be relieved.
Asking it to abandon arms, withdraw its administrative core, and accept supervision by external forces is equivalent to automatically withdrawing from the regional game.
The present declaration does not provide an equivalent exchange.
There is also no unity within Israel.
The military values the security line, the political circles are worried about the collapse of the ruling coalition, and the media pay attention to the international image.
These differences were not resolved by the Declaration, but were further compromised by external pressure.
Some politicians have publicly criticized the U.S. attempt to abduct the pace of negotiations.
On a wider scale, the countries of the region have not achieved a unified goal.
Egypt and Jordan are more concerned about border security, while Qatar and Iran value their influence on Hamas.
Saudi Arabia is looking forward to Turkey’s positive attitude, but it is alsoining its reputation in the Islamic world.
Though these countries made statements at the summit, they differ in understanding the specific content of the declaration.
Some think it represents a ceasefire, while others only think it is a symbolic instrument.
This vague position makes the declaration impossible to operate at the implementation level.
In addition, the absence of oversight by international institutions is also a major hidden danger.
There is no United Nations authorization, no supervision delegation has been established, let alone a mandatory verification mechanism.
In other words, the enforcement power cannot fall.
Without surveillance, without accountability, who would take this paper promise seriously?
At this time, the United States is putting its hopes on an agreement that is not coercive. It can only be said that the pace is too fast and the base is too empty.
Trump too much wants to “take office,” but the battlefield reality is far from matching that pace.
The war has not completely ended, the humanitarian disaster is still serious, weapons have not been collected, and political negotiations are far from beginning.
There is only one point at the heart of this chapter to be made clear: the Peace Declaration cannot withstand the pressure of reality.
Not because the declaration itself is poorly written, but because the situation is not mature.
No one buys the key terms, the regional power game is unbalanced, the time is rushed, the mechanism is incomplete, and the implementation is weak.
In this situation, peace is difficult to establish.
To promote peace, we must face real resistance.
As soon as the declaration of peace was announced, the United States immediately publicized its achievements.
Trump personally stood on the platform, the ceremony was fully arranged, media footage was constant, and the execution level was almost still.
The greatest resistance came from Israel, which, while officially accepting the ceasefire framework, had a strong opposition inside parliament, with some conservative lawmakers criticizing the agreement for being too weak.
The media hype the label of "selling safety" and further pressure on the government.
The military's attitude is also very cautious. There are still a large number of hiding spots in Gaza, the underground passages are complex, and the border defense line has just been established. It has withdrawn rashly and all previous efforts have been wasted.
Countries that have long relied on armed control suddenly changed the line of consultation and are extremely unadapted.
Hamas's internal problems are more complicated, and even if the leadership is willing to compromise, it will be difficult to suppress the radicals.
Some people directly refused to accept the terms of the declaration, and some organizations denied the binding force of the agreement on the spot. The main force ceasefire, and some parts may still reignite.
The declaration has no monitoring mechanism, no resident observers, and no United Nations coordination group. No one mentions how to deal with breaches.
If there is another conflict, no one knows what to do.
Apart from military problems, the difficulty of reconstruction is equally great.
Gaza's infrastructure is close to paralysis, and there is a huge funding gap to return to normal life.
Europe and the United States are willing to provide assistance with strict conditions, and regional countries are generally passive and unwilling to invest too much.
Humanitarian relief is also full of difficulties, with frequent passage approval, material inspection and armed interference.
Rescue efficiency is limited and people's trust is insufficient. The Peace Declaration makes no arrangements for these issues at all, and the governance mechanism is even more blank.
If Hamas withdraws, who will take over the management?
The Palestinian Authority lacks control, the United Nations has no right to take over, and U.S. intervention is repulsed.
The so-called "transitional management committee" is just an empty shell, specific responsibilities are not determined, and the system design is lacking.
It looks like an agreement, the actual content is empty, there is no real operation mechanism, like an empty check.
Once trust breaks down, the first thing to happen is the border.
Small conflicts can detonate great turmoil, public opinion will rebound, and the peace process will collapse quickly.
There is no clear commitment and no one is willing to take responsibility. Under such circumstances, the battlefield may get out of control again at any time.
There is hope for peace, but the path is not easy.
There are many issues with the peace declaration, and the meaning remains.
To pull some of the fighting parties into the venue is progress itself, and the words ceasefire, humanitarian, and reconstruction finally appeared.
In previous conflicts, there was no chance to even sit down and talk.
The most important thing now is to establish a ceasefire.
If we don't fight, there will be room for negotiation, the fighting will be reduced, the casualties will be reduced, and material transportation will be possible.
For ordinary people, this is the most urgent thing.
Relying on unilateral leadership by the United States is not enough.
The United Nations must be involved in monitoring.
The EU, Japan and other donor countries cannot only care about money, but also have to participate in governance arrangements.
The countries of the region cannot just be spectators, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey have all responsibilities, no one can let go.
If a transitional institution is to be set up in the future, the division of powers should be clear.
Participating parties must be balanced, and not just let the American family speak.
Reconstruction funds must have a supervision mechanism, be open and transparent, and prevent corruption.
One thing to be careful about is not to let the surfaces obscure the reality.
Trump hopes to expand his influence through the Manifesto is obvious.
Diplomacy is not a campaign propaganda, it relies only on the influence and cannot be exchanged for substantial results, and peace must be implemented in every detail.
From hostage exchanges to withdrawal arrangements, from material channels to law enforcement division of labor, every step cannot be fooled.
Who will collect the guns, who will manage the territory, and who will distribute supplies must be thought clearly first.
If anything goes wrong, the entire framework may collapse. Even so, the peace process should not be denied.
At least for now, there is still room for negotiation.
Neither party to the conflict has completely closed the door. Even if the process is difficult, as long as it is still on the table, things will not be completely broken.
Some say it’s like a show.
Even a performance, as long as it can reduce injuries, is a step worth trying.
Peace is not easy.
The process is chaotic, the interests are complex, and the opponents are difficult. If we don't take this step, the war will only continue to consume everyone.
The declaration was imperfect, but it brought the issue back to the table.
The next step depends on whether the parties are willing to solve reality.
The reference information:
Four countries guarantee ceasefire in Gaza, Israel and Hamas exchange detainees·Xinhuanet· 2025‑10‑14
Israel and Hamas sign Gaza ceasefire in exchange for detainees · Central News · 2025‐10‐14
Trump says “war is over” Israel is ready to receive detainees · Xinhua news agency client / Xinhua net; 2025‐10‐13
round-table| The United States and Israel declare the end of the "Gaza War", and the vague agreement cannot carry Palestinian-Israeli peace. The Paper News·2025‑10‑14