Ceasefire

We woke up to the news that a ceasefire had been achieved on the second anniversary of the Israel-Hamas war, paving the way for lasting peace. There were celebrations on the Gaza front, joyful images of children, etc. However, a few hours later, black smoke rising from the skies over Gaza was a sign that the ceasefire had not been immediately achieved. Following statements from the Israeli front, it became clear that for the 21-point Trump plan to be implemented, the Israeli government would first need to convene and approve the plan. In other words, the far-right members of the cabinet had to be persuaded. I cannot help but wonder whether we should even consider Netanyahu a moderate far-right figure in this context. As of the morning of Friday, 10 October 2025, when I am writing this article, the waters have calmed for now, and the ceasefire appears to have begun.

The biggest question mark now centres on whether this ceasefire can be sustained in a way that will ultimately lead to lasting peace.

From the Palestinian perspective, it is a complete disaster, with the imposed conditions being a divided Palestine (Gaza and the West Bank), a colonial governor (likely to be Tony Blair) whose exact role has not been fully defined, and complete surrender. From Israel’s perspective, the work that has been started has been left unfinished, Gaza has not been completely cleansed of Palestinians and annexed, and the energy resources under the Gaza coastline have not been seized.

In light of this information, it is emphasised that the outcome of the scenario devised by Israel and the US is to achieve the temporary goal of rescuing the 20 or so hostages still held alive by Hamas, and then to return to war under any pretext. On the Palestinian front, it is also stated that the ceasefire conditions are unacceptable and that, after catching their breath, they will once again target Israeli objectives. These conflicting objectives naturally lead to the continuation of mutual distrust for many years and the impossibility of achieving lasting peace.

Perhaps the fundamental point that should be emphasised at this juncture is that this conflict should not be viewed as limited to the last two years, but rather as the culmination of a struggle that has persisted since the 1948 United Nations resolution recognising Israel. In light of this final point, it seems we will be asking the question, ‘Did Hamas actually take on the role of an important pawn in the game Israel staged?’ for years to come.

While all this is happening, Trump’s desire to receive the Nobel Peace Prize emerges as a separate story. My view, which I share, is that the last person in this world who deserves this prize is surely US President Trump. As a friend of mine put it, ‘If the prize is awarded to Trump, Alfred Nobel’s bones will ache!’ This actually sums up the situation. Trump, who thanked President Erdoğan for successfully mediating with Hamas to secure the ceasefire, inevitably raises other suspicions.

Will Erdoğan’s policy, which has been criticised by the West, particularly the US, for viewing Hamas as an organisation fighting a national liberation struggle and for supporting its leaders, now be regarded as a success story rather than a subject of criticism?

So what did Erdoğan tell Hamas to persuade them to agree to these ceasefire terms, which amount to the colonisation of Palestine, and how will he maintain relations with Hamas going forward? If the ceasefire becomes permanent and the conditions are met, will our country be the destination for Hamas members who are supposed to have laid down their arms?

 Finally, a last point to the US Ambassador to Ankara and representative to Syria, Barrack. At a time of great turmoil in the Middle East, posing for a photo with YPG representatives in front of a map showing Hatay as Syrian territory is, at the very least, a serious diplomatic faux pas. Given the discomfort caused by his previous statements regarding the Treaty of Lausanne, this image would likely have already prompted a declaration of ‘persona non grata’ had we not been so closely aligned with the United States.