Recent developments in Gaza have once again brought the issue to the center of regional dynamics. In recent days, multiple reports have emerged regarding negotiations between Hamas, the Peace Council, and regional and international mediators, indicating agreement on a series of reciprocal measures aimed at changing the situation in Gaza. According to these reports, if the Israeli regime fulfills binding commitments, including ending the war, completely withdrawing its occupying forces, and creating the conditions necessary for reconstruction, Palestinian groups will, in turn, accept measures including transferring Gaza's executive administration to a national technocratic committee.
Donald Trump has described this process as "a major step toward peace in West Asia" and as laying the groundwork for expanding the normalization of relations between certain Arab states and the Israeli regime. Meanwhile, Western media have highlighted claims regarding the disarmament of the resistance, portraying the agreement as evidence of Hamas' retreat and a diplomatic victory for Washington and Tel Aviv. That narrative, however, bears little resemblance to the realities on the ground or to the actual terms of the agreement and is, above all, part of a broader psychological campaign against the resistance.
Trump's Shift: Pursuit of Peace or Escape from a Deadlock?
The central question is why Trump, after months of focusing on increasing pressure on Iran, escalating tensions with the Axis of Resistance, and pursuing confrontational policies toward Russia, is now presenting the Gaza file as his foremost diplomatic achievement.
The answer lies in the White House's difficult political and strategic circumstances. Despite extensive publicity, the maximum pressure campaign against Iran has failed to achieve its stated objectives. Tehran's continued resilience, its calculated management of regional developments, and Washington's failure to realize its strategic goals have increased both domestic and international pressure on the US administration. In this environment, promoting a Gaza agreement may be an attempt to rebuild Trump's damaged political image and project a more peace-oriented US foreign policy.
At the same time, this shift may serve other objectives. On the one hand, it seeks to reinforce the notion that military pressure ultimately produces diplomatic agreements; on the other, it may create political space for aligning certain Arab actors with Washington's future regional policies. From this perspective, the display of "peace" appears less a reflection of strength than an effort to navigate the mounting crises confronting US policy.
Resistance: An Agreement Within the Framework of the Palestinian People's Rights
Western media have sought to portray the recent agreement as evidence of the resistance's defeat. A review of the agreement's provisions and the official positions of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad leaders, however, presents a different picture.
The second phase of the ceasefire framework emphasizes the complete and immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, the cessation of military operations, implementation of outstanding commitments, and the launch of reconstruction and humanitarian relief efforts. Fulfillment of these provisions would effectively end the military occupation of Gaza and restore the territory to normal conditions.
At the same time, resistance leaders have stated that the issue of weapons can only be addressed after the complete withdrawal of occupying forces and the realization of the Palestinian people's rights. Contrary to prevailing media narratives, they maintain that there has been no retreat from the principles of the resistance. Rather, this condition constitutes a test of the sincerity of both the United States and the Israeli regime in honoring their commitments while exposing their true intentions before global public opinion.
Netanyahu Caught in the Resistance's Political Initiative
Hamas' acceptance of the proposed framework is portrayed not as a sign of weakness but as an expression of responsibility toward the people of Gaza and as a political initiative designed to place Benjamin Netanyahu in a difficult position.
The Israeli regime has conditioned acceptance of the agreement on Hamas' disarmament. Yet that very demand calls into question Netanyahu's repeated claims that Hamas' military capabilities have already been completely destroyed. If Hamas had indeed been eliminated, what purpose would a demand for its disarmament serve? This contradiction has itself become another political embarrassment for the Israeli government.
At the same time, Netanyahu faces significant costs under either scenario. Rejecting the agreement would cast him as responsible for prolonging the war and failing to honor commitments, intensifying both domestic and international pressure. Accepting withdrawal, meanwhile, would amount to abandoning the objectives declared after Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and acknowledging the failure to establish full control over Gaza. In either case, the resistance has succeeded in maintaining the political initiative alongside its position on the ground.
A Defining Test for Those Claiming to Champion Peace
The current developments in Gaza are not merely a test for the Israeli regime; they are also a measure of the credibility of all those who present themselves as advocates of peace. If the United States, and President Trump in particular, are genuinely committed to peace, they must compel the Israeli regime to fully implement its commitments, withdraw from Gaza, and end the occupation. Otherwise, their claims of seeking peace will once again lose credibility.
Likewise, Western countries and certain Arab governments that speak of peace should focus less on scrutinizing the resistance and more on requiring the occupying regime to fulfill its international obligations and end the occupation. Statements that concentrate solely on monitoring Hamas while overlooking Israel's responsibilities perpetuate the same double standards that, over recent months, have deepened the suffering of the Palestinian people and undermined the credibility of those claiming to defend human rights.
The developments in Gaza have now reached a point that will determine not only the future of the Strip but also reveal the degree of sincerity of international actors in their professed commitment to peace, justice, and the rights of nations.
NOURNEWS