Khaberni - For half a century, the Middle East has been a historical laboratory for U.S. presidents, each trying to leave his mark on a seemingly endless conflict. Almost every decade, there emerges an American president who thinks he can make his way into the history books through the "Middle East peace" gateway. But the Middle East is stubborn, does not yield to promises, nor softens for slogans; instead, it remains defiant of American formulations, writing its rules in the blood of its peoples and the intertwining interests of its conflicting powers.
Jimmy Carter carried the title "Peace Maker" because he brought Egypt and Israel together at Camp David in 1978, but he left the Palestinians out of the equation, thus leaving the peace incomplete. Bill Clinton tried to reproduce the moment in Oslo, shaking hands with Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn, but his agreement quickly collapsed in the face of the reality of occupation and settlement. Barack Obama came with an impactful speech in Cairo in 2009, talking about a new beginning with the Islamic world, but he left, leaving the region sinking in the chaos of the "Arab Spring" and proxy wars.
Today, Donald Trump comes to the same bloody theater. The businessman turned president, and the leader who masters camera theater more than reading files, stands before Gaza trying to craft himself as the "Man of Peace." But the difference is that his bet this time comes in the midst of a 24-month war, which has taken thousands of lives, paralyzed life in a besieged sector, and shattered Israel's image in the world.
Trump and his "it seems to me" moment
In his usual theatrical way, Trump said: "It seems to me that Hamas is ready for peace." A short sentence, but enough to ignite the global media. In a moment, he presented himself as the one who discovered "the way" amidst the ashes. But the truth is deeper: Hamas did not say a full yes or a categorical no, but gave a gray answer "yes, but".
Yes to the release of prisoners, yes to a technocratic Palestinian administration based on national consensus supported by Arab and Islamic backing, and yes to stopping the war in exchange for only receiving the Israeli prisoners, as stopping the war is a prime demand for citizens exhausted by massacres and siege, to take a breath and regain remnants of life in a city that has known no calm for two years.
But no to disarming, no to exclusion from the political scene, and no to accepting the presence of a foreign force controlling the sector. It is a complex formula that keeps the door of negotiation open but refuses to grant Israel or Washington a free victory.
Trump seized this response and crafted it as a "political victory". He wrote on his platform: "Hamas is ready for peace, and Israel must stop the bombing." But he ignored the depth of complexity: Hamas did not surrender its papers, but rearranged them on the table.
Netanyahu in unexpected astonishment
In Israel, Hamas's response was like a thunderbolt. Netanyahu, who promised his people a decisive end to the movement, was struck with astonishment that disoriented his calculations. He did not expect Hamas to come out with a formula accepting some clauses and rejecting its core, which left him exposed before his audience. Extreme right ministers described the response as betrayal, stating that any Hamas's survival means the end of the concept of deterrence. Families of the prisoners, however, strongly supported any agreement that would bring their children back, even if it meant stopping the war without a decisive outcome.
From Netanyahu's astonishment that disrupted his internal coherence to Trump's reaction that quickly seized the thread and crafted it as a personal achievement, the scene appeared as a rapid shift from Israeli confusion to American showmanship. And between this and that, the field in Gaza settles the real meaning of every word spoken.
Regional mediators: between hammer and anvil
At the Arab and regional level, Egypt moved to reaffirm its historical position as a key guarantor. It rejected the scenario of deportation to Sinai and stressed that any solution must remain within Gaza. Qatar continued its role as an indispensable communication channel between Washington and the resistance. Turkey stepped in to affirm that it cannot be bypassed in regional issues. But despite all these efforts, the final word remained in Washington.
Gaza: the open wound
At the heart of all this remains Gaza. A small city but one that encapsulates all the contradictions of the region. More than 870,000 displaced, entire neighborhoods erased by planes, crumbling hospitals, and a childhood seeking shelter in destroyed schools. Gaza is not just a political card on the table, but a test of the world's credibility. Thus, when Trump spoke of "peace", Palestinians did not heed his phrases as much as they wondered: Will the bombing really stop?
Three paths on the table
The scene stands before three possibilities:
1. A partial agreement that stops the war and returns the prisoners, handing over Gaza's administration to a consensual technocratic authority. It grants Trump an image of accomplishment, gives Israel an exit that preserves its dignity, and keeps Hamas as a political player
2. A widespread explosion if Israel insists on disarmament or if Hamas rejects any amendment touching its core. This scenario could ignite a regional confrontation extending to Lebanon and perhaps the Red Sea.
3. A long truce akin to what exists in southern Lebanon: a fragile ceasefire, arms kept underground, temporary international arrangements that do not change the essence of the conflict. A temporary peace, but it does not stop the cycle of blood.
The resistance: adventure and foresight
Hamas's decision was not a superficial maneuver. The conditional acceptance is a major adventure, but also an expression of strategic foresight. It recognizes that surrendering would cost it its audience and the legitimacy of its sacrifices, and outright rejection would isolate it internationally and give Israel an excuse for more war. It chose to walk the tightrope: openness to negotiation without submitting to the American-Israeli ceiling.
It is a delicate balance: an adventure because it puts it under immense pressure, and foresight because it preserves its weapons as a deterrent card and gives it time to reposition. History teaches that resistance sometimes gains more by patience than by haste.
Global reactions: sigh of relief
The world has not stood idly by. In Europe, Berlin and Paris saw Trump's plan—despite its gaps—as better than the continuation of slaughter. In Ankara, Erdogan expressed relief for any step that stops the war. The United Nations welcomed the truce, even if temporary, describing it as a "window of hope". In Washington, the American media was divided between those who saw in Trump a political initiator, and those who considered him a seeker of a media image. China and Russia, for their part, seized the situation to cast doubt on American intentions, but they also welcomed the ceasefire.
These responses did not grant Trump the title he seeks, but they made the international community breathe a sigh of relief, albeit temporarily, amid the threat of a larger regional war
The mantle is not given away for free
The Middle East has taught the world that titles are not bestowed in press conferences, but on the ground. If Trump can transform conditional acceptance into a cohesive agreement, it will be recorded for him that he stopped a bloody war. But if he fails, he will enter history as a leader who passed over blood in search of an image and exited without achievement.
Gaza will remain the witness. Either it becomes a gateway to incomplete peace, or a new political grave added to the graveyard of American promises. And the mantle of "Man of Peace" will not be granted to Trump or anyone else unless the blood actually stops, not if the words stop at the edges of cameras.
