Trump Ends the War in Gaza and Saves What Remains of Palestine

By Al-Hajj Al-Maati

Former U.S. President Donald Trump announced an agreement to establish a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, affirming that the war has ended and that the agreement will hold. Under this deal, Hamas will release 48 Israeli hostages, while Israel will release 250 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences, in addition to 1,700 detainees from Gaza. Trump is also set to visit Israel and Egypt to attend the signing ceremonies.

The agreement comes after a pivotal event on October 7, which reignited one of the most complex conflict arenas in the Middle East. The brutal attack carried out by Hamas on Israel shocked regional and international calculations, raising a fundamental question:

Why did Hamas carry out this attack, and what did it gain other than destruction and suffering for its people?

Tactically, Hamas may have sought through this catastrophic attack to break the political deadlock and bring the Palestinian cause back to the forefront of international attention after years of neglect.

However, the results on the ground were entirely opposite:

• Massive destruction in Gaza, affecting infrastructure, homes, and hospitals.
• Displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians, marking one of the worst humanitarian crises in the history of the region.
• Severe losses in human life and military capabilities that the movement had built over many years.

Strategically, the October 7 attack undermined most of the gains Hamas had accumulated over the last decade:

• The movement lost what little international sympathy it had, as it was held responsible for igniting a destructive confrontation.
• Its political legitimacy within the Palestinian arena eroded, especially given the heavy humanitarian cost borne by Gaza’s population.
• Its regional relations with allies were strained, as many countries struggled to balance political support for the Palestinian cause with maintaining internal stability and diplomatic ties with the West.

Regionally, the attack disrupted alliances and weakened Hamas’ allied networks in the area. The extensive Israeli response was not limited to Gaza; its effects extended to other fronts, placing allied movements in a difficult defensive position.

Some Arab states also found themselves in a delicate situation, balancing humanitarian sympathy for Gaza’s residents with concerns over escalating security and political tensions within their borders.

The greatest miscalculation appears to have been Hamas’ belief—under leadership perceived as politically and strategically flawed—that the attack would change the rules of the game and break the ongoing blockade. In reality, the attack proved to be an uncalculated gamble with adverse consequences: instead of weakening Israel, it strengthened internal unity and justified a prolonged military campaign that resulted in widespread destruction in Gaza, culminating in the release of Israeli hostages and Hamas surrendering its weapons.

What occurred on October 7 was not merely a military operation but a harsh strategic shift in the course of the Palestinian issue.

Rather than achieving any political or territorial gains, Hamas found itself—and the residents of Gaza—in a harsher, more complex reality.

The events demonstrated that unplanned escalation cannot replace politics and dialogue, and that ultimately, innocent civilians pay the highest price, living amid the ruins while searching for a glimmer of hope for a better future.