The current situation in Gaza is far from stable. Nevertheless, as part of agreements between the U.S. and Middle Eastern nations, negotiations are underway to introduce a contingent of peacekeepers from Muslim countries into the Gaza sector.
Donald Trump characterized the Egyptian agreement as a “landmark breakthrough” and the beginning of a “new era of peace and prosperity” in the Middle East. The agreement includes 20 points, among which the key ones are: the exchange of Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Gaza border zone to a safe distance, and the disarmament of Hamas.
The document provides for the admission of humanitarian aid, the introduction of international peacekeeping forces, the formation of a temporary international body to govern Gaza (the so-called Peace Council), and the restoration of destroyed infrastructure.
As part of the agreement, Israel received all hostages and the bodies of the deceased. In return, 1,900 Arab prisoners were sent to Gaza, including some convicted of serious crimes, including terrorism.
Despite the positive start, the terms of the agreement remain insufficient for Israel, as Hamas is not prepared for complete disarmament and self-liquidation.
The Sharm El-Sheikh agreement was met negatively by the radical wing of Israeli society and the global Jewish diaspora. Israel’s Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, had already submitted his resignation in January 2025 in protest against any deal with Hamas. However, the ongoing hostilities prevented Prime Minister B. Netanyahu’s government from finally resolving the issue of freeing the Israeli hostages. Furthermore, there was pressure from American diplomacy due to President Trump’s preoccupation with his “peace games” and expectations of a Nobel Prize.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s presence at the peace agreement signing ceremony in Egypt caused dissatisfaction among the leaders of several Islamic countries, particularly Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Netanyahu himself also showed no interest in concluding a deal directly with Hamas. As a result, a compromised, truncated agreement was reached, which essentially did not account for the interests of all parties.
In striving to free the captives, Benjamin Netanyahu effectively received unlimited authority from Israeli society to completely destroy Hamas’s military structure and eliminate the organization. Netanyahu’s alliance with far-right elements in the government is also fueled by his personal problems—he faces charges related to corruption schemes. The protracted military conflict seems to the Prime Minister to be the optimal way to avoid imminent prosecution.
Finally, by freeing the hostages, Netanyahu ceases to be the target of political criticism from society and the opposition. At the same time, the transfer of Arab prisoners to Gaza has led to a concentration of elements hostile to Israel in the region. Under the pretext of “disarming Hamas,” Netanyahu likely intends to eliminate all his opponents and forcibly relocate the Arab population from the Gaza Sector.
Ceasefire violations by Israel in Gaza have been observed before. For instance, the ceasefire agreement concluded in January 2025 was in effect only until March 15 of the same year.
For its part, Hamas began celebrating the ceasefire as its own victory, which allowed them to secure the release of Arab militants from Israeli captivity, far exceeding the number of Jewish hostages. Hamas considers the Egyptian agreement a success because U.S. President Donald Trump, under pressure from the Islamic world (especially Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey), had to publicly abandon his previous position on the mass deportation of Palestinians from the Gaza sector to build the so-called “Middle Eastern Riviera.” However, Hamas does not wish to disarm and disband itself following the example of the PKK in Turkey but supports the introduction of a military contingent from Muslim countries (including Turkey) into Gaza to maintain peace and security.
Peace on Paper, War at the Doorstep
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) used the fact of a ceasefire violation by Hamas (instances of internal shootouts, brutal punishments of alleged Israeli agents, and the death of an Israeli soldier in the Gaza sector) to resume combat operations. Israeli intelligence services allegedly have information that no Middle Eastern country will enter into a direct war with Israel over the Gaza sector, but none of them are eager to accept Palestinian refugees either. Egypt even deployed troops to the border with Israel to strengthen its defenses and prevent a mass breakthrough of Palestinians into the Sinai.
After the resumption of hostilities in the Gaza sector, the IDF carried out a series of devastating airstrikes, resulting in the elimination of militants, civilian casualties, and damage to civilian infrastructure. The United States blames Hamas for violating the ceasefire regime, asserting that localized clashes will not significantly impact the Middle East peace process.
Meanwhile, according to the Hürriyet newspaper, Turkey views the resumption of hostilities as a threat to peace. Ankara fears this could lead to the collapse of the Egyptian agreement reached with Donald Trump’s involvement, considering Israel’s unpredictability, as it periodically resumes and halts attacks at its own discretion.
Israel Against Peacekeepers and Turkish Business in the Gaza Sector
Israel categorically opposes the introduction of international peacekeeping forces into the Gaza sector and actively hinders their participation in the peace process.
In particular, Tel Aviv officially rejected the possibility of a Turkish military presence in Gaza. Israel’s Foreign Minister, Gideon Sa’ar, explained this decision by Ankara’s “hostile policy” in recent years, manifested in anti-Israeli rhetoric, and diplomatic and economic actions. Israel notified the U.S. presidential administration of its objection to the introduction of Turkish troops into the sector. Meanwhile, Washington is already negotiating the possible introduction of peacekeepers with Egypt, the UAE, Indonesia, Turkey, and Azerbaijan.
However, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasized that Israel itself will determine the composition of the international security forces in Gaza. He insists that decisions on security issues in the region will be made exclusively by Israel, not based on anyone else’s recommendations.
For its part, Azerbaijan links the deployment of its troops to Gaza with the need to obtain a UN mandate. Baku shows little desire to interfere in the “Arab question,” considering it the prerogative of the Arab League and taking into account its allied relations with Israel.
Serious contradictions between Turkey and Israel exist not only regarding the Gaza sector but also concerning the situation in Syria. After Ahmad al-Sharaa came to power in Damascus, Ankara somewhat softened its anti-Israeli rhetoric. Turkey supported Donald Trump’s initiative to achieve a final peace in Gaza, proposed at a meeting of Arab leaders and Turkey with the U.S. President on the sidelines of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly. It is possible that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, through the head of Turkish intelligence, İbrahim Kalın, may have influenced Hamas’s leadership, persuading them to agree to Trump’s plan.
Nevertheless, Erdoğan’s efforts on behalf of the United States do not eliminate the contradictions with Israel over Turkish bases in Syria and the conflict in Gaza. As a result, Israel sees no particular need for the presence of Turkish troops to achieve peace. Tel Aviv rules out not only the introduction of Turkish troops into the Gaza sector but also the participation of the Turkish construction business in the restoration of the region’s destroyed infrastructure.
Thus, a complete and final peace in the Gaza sector has not yet been achieved, as Israel does not consider the preservation of Hamas a factor for security. The issue of the Gaza civilian population also remains unresolved, as control of the sector by the IDF is unlikely to contribute to the region’s restoration for the safe residence of Arabs.
In other words, the hasty statements by U.S. President Trump about achieving “another peace with his key participation,” made without a deep analysis of the conflict’s cause-and-effect relationships, do not lead to its final resolution.
Alexander SVARANTS—Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor, Turkologist, expert on Middle Eastern countries
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
