Trump wants a reward for the Gaza deal. But the real question is, why didn’t he do it earlier? | Jonathan Friedland

AAfter so many images of death and destruction, what a beautiful comfort it is to see images of joy. On the international television newscast on Thursday, the screen split: celebrations in Gaza and celebrations in Israel, scenes of cheering and applause mirroring each other, as if to confirm that this was the war that the same peoples had long wanted – and which most people never wanted to begin.

The images were not uncommon. We saw a version of it in January, when a ceasefire was announced to great jubilation. This only lasted until mid-March, when Israel broke the agreement and resumed its bombing of Gaza, an experience that would temper and warn against the current hope that things could collapse at any moment. However, this time, even the most experienced pessimists in the region admit that the agreement appears more sustainable.

How did this happen and who deserves the credit? Often, a breakthrough like this is the result of both parties changing positions, more or less equally. At first glance, it might seem as if that’s what happened here. It is clear that Hamas was weakened after Israel eliminated its leaders and weakened its major sponsor, Iran. Donald Trump made sure that those countries with influence over Hamas – Qatar, Turkey and Egypt – pushed the organization to say yes. (He did so using tools that the United States uniquely possesses, agreeing, for example, to: Defense agreement with Qatar Which gives the Gulf state NATO-level protection.

Even so, despite Best efforts Although Benjamin Netanyahu’s supporters suggest otherwise, Hamas has not been forced to make a major shift in its position. Trump’s 20-point plan would call for the group to surrender its weapons, but Hamas has not committed to doing so, and there is no mention of that in the current, somewhat narrow ceasefire agreement billed as the first phase of the deal.

The movement said from the beginning that it would hand over the hostages it was holding as soon as Israel agreed to release Palestinian prisoners, eventually withdraw its forces from Gaza and end the war. The withdrawal will certainly take place in stages, but these three moves are what Israel has broadly agreed to. like Michael Milstein“Let’s face it, Hamas hasn’t changed anything significantly in its basic positions,” he told me when we spoke, a former colonel in Israeli military intelligence who is widely viewed as the country’s top Hamas analyst.

In other words, a major shift occurred in the Israeli position. Just a few days before Trump unveiled his plan at the White House with Netanyahu at his side, the Israeli prime minister was telling the United Nations in New York that the war would not end until Hamas was completely destroyed. Now he has agreed to a deal that leaves Hamas in place. He accepted what he had previously considered unacceptable. What prompted him to do that?

The short answer is that Donald Trump finally used the full power of his office and called for an end to the war. Netanyahu was left in no doubt that his patience had run out, confident that the Israeli prime minister had nowhere else to turn. Over the past two years, Netanyahu has shown the middle finger to everyone – including Israel’s friends and historical allies – leaving him dependent on Trump alone. If the American president says the war must end, then it must end. As Trump himself told Netanyahu: “Israel cannot fight the world.”

Most observers suspect that Trump decided to back down after the failed September 9 Israeli attack on the Hamas negotiating team in Doha. Trump considered this a personal insult. Not only did Netanyahu not give him adequate warning that Israel was planning to kill the very people with whom it needed to discuss the agreement, but he did so on the sovereign territory of a country with which Trump has personal and financial ties: Remember, the Qataris gifted Trump a new plane to use as Air Force One. It was an act of arrogance on Netanyahu’s part. Like a mafia boss insulted by the assassination attempt on one of his business associates, Trump decided it was time to remind the Israeli prime minister who the boss was.

The US President also pointed to the raucous protests in Israeli streets, where the public there demanded an end to the war, and the global outrage caused by Israel’s smashing of Gaza, and estimated that brokering a ceasefire agreement would bring him the fame he craves, even though he often tries to contempt international public opinion. Not to mention the Nobel Peace Prize, which he covets as the one priceless trinket that has so far eluded him. This is the power of the President of the United States, and once he decides to use it, the pieces quickly fall into place.

Does this make Donald Trump the hero of this hour? Those of us who have opposed him so forcefully in the past decade have to swallow hard and give credit where it’s due. His willingness to bully and arm-twist, his command of global attention, and his strength of character were all employed, on this occasion, to achieve a noble goal: to stop the killing and free the hostages.

But any admiration must be conditional on one immutable truth. Trump could have done that much earlier. When he returned to the White House on January 20, the ceasefire agreement was not much different from this agreement. When Netanyahu moved to break the ceasefire in March, Trump could have put his foot down and said no. Instead, he gave him the green light – and what followed was, in many ways, the worst six months of the war. Trump had the power to stop it – but he chose not to.

Of course, this same criticism largely applies to Netanyahu himself. Indeed, the insult is worse because a deal very similar to the one he agreed to this week was on offer as early as June 2024. But he rejected that, and others like him that followed, deciding at every turn that his personal and political interests were best served by the ongoing war. It is true that Joe Biden deserves blame because he did not use US power to demand a halt to the negotiations (although his situation was more difficult than that of his successor, if only because Donald Trump does not have Donald Trump in the wings, who seems to be promising Netanyahu better terms). But Netanyahu’s guilt is profound.

Skip the previous newsletter promotion

After promoting the newsletter

Even if you just think back to the opportunity you lost in March, just think about all that you’ve lost. The lives of Palestinians in Gaza have been devastated ever since; Hunger after Israel stopped aid. From Israel’s own point of view: the hostages were forced to endure another seven months in captivity; Soldiers killed in action. Destroying Israel’s position, especially with regard to aid, and turning the country into a global pariah state. “It’s really a disaster, because it feels like we’ve taken a very long journey to find ourselves back at exactly the same point,” Milstein says. You could pass a similarly damning judgment on Hamas: it could have ended Gaza’s suffering much earlier by releasing all the hostages.

As it turns out, Trump did not receive a Nobel Prize – not this year, anyway. If he really wanted this, it was obvious what he should do. He should remain as engaged over the coming months and years as he has been in the past 10 days. Each of his plan’s 20 points contains enough unresolved tensions to bring the whole thing down.

Above all, he must stay on Netanyahu’s case, alert to the danger that Netanyahu will bet on what was agreed upon and never move on to what is supposed to come next. Note the Netanyahu ally who starkly declared: “There is no second stageTrump cannot tolerate that. He has to keep up the pressure, and prevent Netanyahu from playing any of his usual games. If Trump really wants the peace prize, there is no other way.

• Jonathan Freedland is a columnist for The Guardian. His new non-fiction book, Circle of Traitors: Rebels Against the Nazis and the Spy Who Betrayed Them (£25), is available from Guardian Library Priced at £22

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to email a response of up to 300 words for consideration for publication in our letters section, please click here.