“Hope” is the thing with feathers –

That perches in the soul –

And sings the tune without the words –

And never stops – at all – (Dickinson, 1-4). 

“After so many years of unceasing war and endless danger, today the skies are calm, the guns are silent, the sirens are still, and the sun rises on a Holy Land that is finally at peace, a land and a region that will live, God willing, in peace for all eternity,” said Trump on October 13th while addressing the Knesset–Israel’s parliament in Jerusalem. 

According to President Trump, the Israel-Hamas war has ceased, and his twenty-point plan is steadily being enacted. Negotiated between the United States and many Arab and Muslim countries, the Twenty-Point Plan seeks to bring peace to Israel and Gaza through an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages, de-militarization of the Gaza strip, aid distribution, and the implementation of a temporary international transitional body- “The Board of Peace”. The “Board of Peace” would temporarily govern Gaza, and consist of former British prime minister Tony Blair in a central role, alongside Trump, qualified Palestinians, and other international experts. 

Trump’s recent optimism regarding the conflict is fueled by the successes of his Twenty-Point Plan. Released on September twenty-ninth, the plan began to be fulfilled on October thirteenth, when the last twenty living Israeli hostages held by Hamas were simultaneously released with nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners. Trump hailed the exchange a victory as countless celebrated the release of hostages as a step towards peace. 

But while the efforts of Trump in conjunction with the efforts of leaders of Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey have been praised by countless heads of states online, there is still lots of skepticism surrounding this potential “end” to the war. 

Although peace in the area is a universal hope, two years of war have made trust impossible for those on both sides of the conflict. The release of hostages has certainly provided some relief, but not nearly enough to quell fear among inhabitants of warring territory. In Gaza, “there was relief that the relentless bombardment and ground offensives may stop for a time and aid may flow in. But there was also skepticism and worry over how long any pause in fighting would last, whether hundreds of thousands will be able to return to their homes, and whether Gaza — its cities largely in ruins — will ever be rebuilt”(What we know about the deal to pause war in Gaza and what’s next). Even Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been hesitant to call the war officially over, instead heartily expressing his desire to work towards peace alongside the United States. Israel can’t rule over Gaza, as it will upset Palestinians. On the other hand, bringing in other state heads as part of a leading board could cause tension between the inhabitants of those states and Palestinians. There are a lot of risks to assess, and currently, the fate of the territory lies in the hands of the deal’s guarantors — the U.S., Egypt, Qatar and Turkey.

As a junior taking IB Global Politics, I’ve been trying to apply concepts like sovereignty, legitimacy, and power from class to analyze this conflict through both a liberalist and realist perspective. Examining the conflict in this way has helped me better understand the intentions of actors involved in the Israel-Hamas war. For example, the war started with a surprise attack on Israel by Hamas, an Islamic resistance movement that rejects the legitimacy of Israel. Hamas has aimed to replace Israel through the establishment of an Islamic Palestinian state, seen as the legitimate ruling entity in their eyes. In response, Israel declared war on Hamas, and two years of conflict ensued. 

Looking at this through a realist perspective, one could say Hamas attacked due to Palestine’s lack of recognition as a state. By attacking a more powerful, recognized state, Hamas aimed to showcase Gaza’s power. It also potentially aimed to produce a strong Israeli retaliation, one that could both rally supporters for the Palestinian cause and bring more actors into the conflict, shifting the balance of power to level the playing field for Gaza. Such action could potentially help Palestinians gain full internal and external sovereignty (supreme power linked to the independence of a state) . 

On the other hand, Israel saw Hamas as a threat to their sovereignty, and acted in their best interest by working to keep their inhabitants safe. The potential threat to Israel’s security and territory led them to immediately fight back with full force – to destroy the entity trying to inflict harm on them. However, according to the theory of realism, states are rational actors. Through a realist lens, that could explain why both parties have expressed openness to an agreement, while remaining alert to any potential further escalations within the conflict. 

While realism helps explain the motives of both parties, a liberalist perspective can attempt to explain the involvement of the United Nations and its members in brokering a peace deal. When using a liberalist lens, a deadly conflict between Israel and Hamas affects all states, and therefore should be resolved through collective effort. To help resolve the issue, the United Nations office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has been coordinating aid deliveries into Gaza(albeit with limited access), and the International Committee of the Red Cross has scaled up operations in Gaza, Israel, and the West Bank to address urgent humanitarian needs throughout the conflict. Additionally, the UN has supported U.S.-brokered ceasefires, and the ICRC has evacuated thousands of wounded individuals and engaged with both parties to remind them of their obligations under international humanitarian law – to ensure the safety of civilians and hostages. The next immediate step for these organizations is to focus on peacebuilding. While pressure from many global actors works to uphold the ceasefire, a stop to the fighting is not enough to prevent cycles of violence from continuing. To re-build peace and trust, civilian suffering needs to be recognized and acted on, and the reconstruction of health systems, shelters, education, and transparent local governments needs to be prioritized. Furthermore, rapid job creation must take place, and programs for cross-community dialogue, trauma care, and peace education must be funded in order to shift social incentives away from violence and towards rebuilding peaceful relations. While Israel and Gaza are now potentially entering a post war era, the rebuilding process will be just as strenuous, and require massive collective effort from the global community. 

Locally, New York City residents have continued to voice their concerns during rallies throughout the turmoil of the war.  Just recently, on October seventh, –  the day marking two years since the inciting Hamas attack – vigils honored Israeli hostages in public squares and synagogues across Manhattan. Simultaneously, pro-Palestinian activists gathered in midtown Manhattan to criticize the humanitarian toll in Gaza. Furthermore, activists on both sides have continued to speak out online from all around the world(Protests, memorials in New York City mark 2 years since the October 7 attack). On a larger scale, the UN, ICRC, and several members of the United Nations (including Turkey, Egypt, Qatar and the United States), have been working to bring safety and order back into Gaza. Whether the global community will get to reap the fruits of their labor, however, is uncertain. While the fighting may have ceased, re-building and working out agreements will be no easy feat. But while there is a willingness to cooperate, there is hope. Meanwhile, the hope is that prime minister Netanyahu’s words will ring true: “Mr. President, you are committed to this peace. I am committed to this peace and, together, Mr. President, we will achieve this peace”.