Another Israel-Hamas agreement

When an agreement between Israel and Hamas is announced, the question we should all ask ourselves is simple. Are we witnessing a genuine turning point or just another episode in an already familiar story? The answer, if we set aside our hopes and look at the facts with clarity, is clear. We are not facing the end of the conflict, nor even a step in that direction. What we find before us is a tactical pause, a fragile agreement born of momentary political necessities, whose structure is so weak as to be destined to fail. The Trump administration's intervention does not guarantee lasting peace. It is rather the sign of an American political calculation, where the image of diplomatic success matters more than its actual long-term effectiveness.

Historic Breakthrough or Tactical Pause?

The first mistake to avoid is mistaking a news event for historical change. The narrative of a "historic agreement" suggests an epochal turning point that changes the rules of the game forever. Reality, however, shows us a pattern we unfortunately know well: that of temporary truces. The history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is full of pauses and ceasefires that, whilst providing some breathing space, have never resolved the underlying problems.

A genuine breakthrough would require a complete transformation of the interests of all parties involved, supported by international guarantees, money for reconstruction, and a credible political project. Today's agreement, limited to an initial 42-day phase, contains none of this. It arises from immediate and divergent needs. The Israeli government must placate international and domestic pressure for the release of hostages. Hamas, on the other hand, needs time to reorganise its forces and present itself as the only entity capable of negotiating with Israel. It's a move on a chessboard, but the game remains the same.

A House of Cards Without Foundations

Lasting peace requires three things: shared interests, money for reconstruction, and strong international guarantors. The current agreement has none of these elements, and for this reason it is like a house of cards. It will collapse at the first gust of wind.

If we analyse the real interests of the decision-makers, we immediately understand that for none of them is it truly convenient to maintain peace in the long term. We are in a situation where the interest in breaking the agreement grows with each passing day. For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, peace means the end of his government and the beginning of his legal troubles. His interest is to use the truce and then flex his muscles again for his electorate. For Hamas, the objective is not peace with Israel, but to survive and strengthen itself in Gaza. This pause serves that purpose, not to build peaceful coexistence.

The second element, the economic one, is also missing. Real peace needs to transform a war-based economy into one based on reconstruction and prosperity. Gaza would need a grand plan, as happened in Europe after the war, with international funds provided only in exchange for precise security and stability commitments. In this way, money would become a tool to encourage peaceful behaviour. Today's agreement provides nothing of the sort. It merely allows more humanitarian aid to enter—a good thing, but one that doesn't change the fact that conflict still benefits someone economically.

Finally, the mediating team—the USA, Qatar, and Egypt—is the same as always. In the past, it has already demonstrated that it lacks sufficient strength to impose genuine peace. Guaranteeing an agreement would require the world's major powers, China included, ready to impose a heavy price on those who don't respect the terms. The fact that there isn't such a strong group of guarantors tells us that the objective is not to impose peace, but merely to manage a temporary truce.

An Agreement for Washington, More Than for the Middle East

It's impossible to understand this agreement without looking at what's happening in American politics, especially with the Trump administration's involvement. The manner and timing of its presentation suggest that the real winner is not in the Middle East, but in Washington. For a president who wants to project an image of strength and success, a peace agreement in this region, however fragile, is an excellent card to play both domestically and internationally.

What matters is not whether the agreement lasts, but whether it can be talked about on television. The objective is the photograph, the handshake, the newspaper headline. This changes everything. Success is no longer measured in years of peace, but in the media impact of the moment. This is why there was a push for a quick agreement, without addressing the complex negotiations necessary to build something solid. A rapid and visible victory was preferred to a slow and complicated solution. The agreement thus becomes a tool of American foreign policy to achieve domestic political objectives.

Beyond Illusions

In conclusion, the agreement of 9th October 2025 is not peace and is not even a step in that direction. It is a tactical move, very useful for image but hollow in substance, that serves everyone's short-term interests, including those of the American mediators. Its structure lacks the foundations necessary to endure. Looking at things as they are, without illusions, the prediction is clear. Once everyone has obtained the small advantage they sought from this pause, the real causes of the conflict will resurface. Decades of experience teach us that, in all likelihood, we will witness a return to hostilities.