Brett McGurk helped negotiate the deal that allowed the release of dozens of hostages. Now look at the new step that promises peace in Gaza
Last night’s news from Egypt brings hope, for the first time in months, to the suffering families of hostages, to Israelis with loved ones on the front lines, and to Gazans trapped in a tragic war that Hamas started. The agreement calls for the release of all hostages living and held by Hamas and then a long process aimed at recovering Gaza when Hamas no longer controls the Gaza Strip and its Palestinian population.
What should we think of this agreement and what do we hope to see in the coming days?
The art of a deal
Diplomacy is a lonely task. Former senator George Mitchell, after negotiating the Good Friday Agreements to end the conflict in Northern Ireland, described “700 days of failure and one day of success”. In my experience, much more so when the mission involves negotiations to free hostages and end a regional war that has engulfed the Middle East following Hamas’ invasion of Israel two long years ago this week.
That is one of the reasons why the agreement reached last night on Gaza is a massive and unequivocal triumph.
This year began with some hope, following a three-phase agreement to free the hostages and ultimately end the war. I helped negotiate this agreement, with the support of the new Trump administration, a rare example of bipartisan cooperation. But the agreement fell apart in March and the last six months have been some of the worst of the entire war.
Consider that, just a few weeks ago, no talks were taking place. Israel had just launched its biggest offensive of the war and Qatar had given up its role as mediator after an Israeli attack on its capital that targeted Hamas’s external leadership.
France and the United Kingdom took their own initiatives to recognize a Palestinian state without asking anything from Hamas, the Palestinians or the Israelis. Hamas welcomed this approach, and at the same time, many members of Congress supported legislation to cut off military aid to Israel.
Against this trend, the Trump administration offered its own framework that required Hamas to release all hostages at once or else face “obliteration.” This plan requires Hamas to cede control of the Gaza Strip to a provisional security force and abandon its weapons, and for Israel to give up any claim to annex or occupy Gaza.
It also points to a conditions-based path to establishing a Palestinian state much later.
The US president and his team gathered unanimous support from the region and majority-Muslim states for this plan, helping to further isolate Hamas, while also pressuring Israel to accept its terms. Last Friday, the American president again threatened Hamas with obliteration if it refused to accept the plan and then called on Israel to suspend military attacks, after Hamas responded with an equivocal “yes”.
It was good diplomacy supported by the application of power, incentives and deadlines. And it seems to have worked.
Yes, this framework builds on what was developed under the Biden administration and was intended to be Phase 2 of the January deal, but credit goes where it’s due: Trump and his team, led by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, stood up to critics and events to forge a life-saving agreement that could end this terrible war, along with a path to long-term peace. That alone is an achievement that deserves to be celebrated.
Now, what should we expect in the coming days, and can the plan work as intended?
Will Hamas be Hamas?
In the January deal, Hamas emerged from its underground fortress of tunnels, a labyrinth longer and more extensive than Manhattan’s subway system, with full military equipment, clean intelligence and a show of staying power as the sole security force in Gaza. He paraded with hostages and the coffin of an Israeli baby, provoking Israel to restart the war and lose any serious prospect of a second phase.
This time, the agreement requires Hamas to give up power and such grotesque demonstrations and shows of force would constitute a clear violation of the agreement.
One of the first signs that this promising agreement could lead to a new beginning for Gazans without Hamas is the way Hamas manages the release of the hostages.
If it resembles the January agreement, that would be a bad sign, and Israel may be more inclined to resume the war once its hostages are returned. It is therefore up to countries with influence over Hamas, mainly Qatar, Egypt and Turkey, to ensure that implementation runs smoothly, with deliveries discreetly managed and supervised by the International Red Crescent/Red Cross Committee (ICRC).
Hamas and what remains of it as a military organization must stay out of sight if the goal is to create the conditions for long-term peace.
Will there be a second phase?
The second phase of this new agreement is basically everything that happens after Hamas returns the hostages in exchange for the release of the Palestinian prisoners. The agreement provides for the creation of a provisional security force and a provisional political structure in Gaza. None of this has yet been put into practice, and it could take months if there is not constant pressure and leadership from the US.
Under the Biden administration, US Central Command has developed plans for an interim international security force inside Gaza. American forces would not be in Gaza, but would provide logistical and other support from Egypt and elsewhere.
It is likely that these plans are now being put into practice, and several countries reportedly have offered forces for the interim security structure. But building such a security coalition also takes time, and during that time, Hamas is likely to seek to reassert its authority, even if discreetly, through intimidation of Gazans.
Therefore, it is essential that the United States act quickly to ensure troop commitment and establish the command structure and rules of engagement for this interim phase. If they do not do so, they could lose the promise of the current moment and increase the risks of rekindling the war.
Likewise, the political entity outlined in the agreement needs to be named, and there will be debate and controversy over which names to include. Once again, only the US can impose discipline and help get these structures back on their feet quickly.
Finally, the plan calls for a reconstruction program supported and financed by the international community. This too requires leadership. Fortunately, the US knows how to do it. One example is Mosul, the Iraqi city that was nearly destroyed in the year-long battle to oust ISIS ten years ago. I remember standing in the rubble shortly after the battle and wondering if the city could ever be rebuilt, let alone recovered.
But the US, through a global coalition, marshalled the organization and resources to begin the process, and ten years later even the historic mosques and churches that were leveled in the battle have been restored.
The same process and more will be needed for Gaza, which must begin now, together with a coalition of countries ready to contribute resources and expertise. For now, what is essential is to put all these processes in motion and not allow the spoilsport, including the remnants of Hamas, to reconstitute and recover.
Focus on families
As one of the negotiators of the only two previous ceasefires in the Gaza war, I met many of the hostages’ families and shared their suffering and, in some cases, the pain of loved ones lost to Hamas. When I heard about the agreement last night, my first thought was of these families, and I haven’t stopped thinking about them since.
This week, twenty families will be reunited with their loved ones who suffered for more than two years in the most horrible conditions imaginable, underground, chained, suffocated, in the darkness. Around 30 other families will be reunited with the remains of their loved ones killed by Hamas on October 7 and beyond.
These innocent families and the hostages who will soon return home deserve admiration and support long after this week.
Path to peace
It is too early to conclude that this agreement will lead to a more lasting peace. Much could go wrong and Israel will have elections for a new government next year, which could divert attention from regional diplomacy.
But the potential exists now. Two years ago, on October 7, Hamas intended to rally its partners in a multi-front war against Israel. For a time it was successful, but those partners – Iran, Hezbollah, Houthis, Iraqi militias and the Assad regime in Syria – have now, one by one, been defeated or significantly degraded. There is no doubt that this opens up a historic opportunity for broader peace and integration in the Middle East, and this will be an issue to be addressed in the coming months.
But for now, let’s focus on these first steps and welcome the scenes of the hostages leaving Gaza – all of them – along with those of Gazans celebrating the relief from the war that Hamas started. It is a day that many believed would never come and that was achieved thanks to the old-fashioned art of persistent diplomacy.
