Yesterday, a document on a ceasefire in Gaza was signed between the US, Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey on the shores of the Red Sea. Interestingly, representatives of the warring parties in Gaza – Israel and Hamas – did not participate in the signing ceremony.
Trump will begin a new role in the Middle East starting next week. He will lead the “Governing Council” aimed at restoring control over the Gaza Strip. Although this structure will not be elected by the residents of the region, observers consider Trump's personal involvement in the process a significant factor for maintaining the ceasefire.
Trump's plan consists of 20 articles and combines political settlement restoration, infrastructure reconstruction, and international control mechanisms. Analysts call this “managed multi-vector diplomacy,” meaning there are several players, several goals, and one central figure – Trump – in the process.
The main goal of the “Peace Council” to be established at the initiative of the US President is to take control of Gaza from Hamas and entrust it to independent Palestinian technocrats. Under the plan, new security forces will be trained in Egypt, and international observers will be deployed in Gaza. Hamas refuses to surrender all weapons, but the US side is seeking a compromise.
According to discussions, multinational “Stabilization Forces” may be deployed in the region. Israel opposes the participation of Turkish military personnel in these forces, instead proposing the Indonesian option. However, Washington considers Turkey's role as a NATO member more appropriate. Turkey is reported to have played a very important role in convincing Hamas to release some of the Israeli hostages.
The Future of Gaza
Israel views the region's transition to “non-political” governance, by relinquishing full military control, as a positive signal. At the same time, the Trump administration proposes a large-scale financial package and infrastructure projects for Gaza's reconstruction.
Although Trump's “Gaza plan” is considered diplomatically contradictory, it is the first time that a US initiative combines not only military and political but also economic and governance mechanisms. This approach allows Washington to both restore its influence in the region and create a balance among Israel, Turkey, Egypt, and the Gulf countries.
Who Lost, Who Won...
International analysts are still discussing the final outcomes of the Gaza war. Most observers believe that there is no complete military victor in this conflict. Although Israel weakened Iran's sphere of influence, referred to as the “axis of evil” in the region, and destroyed a large part of Hamas's military infrastructure, it could not completely eliminate the organization. As a result of the war, Gaza remains virtually devastated, but politically, the governance of the region is still uncertain. Hamas, despite suffering heavy losses, did not fully surrender and maintained its ideological existence.
In this context, a striking example is the Victory achieved by the Azerbaijani Army. Azerbaijan was the only state in the world to achieve a complete military victory after World War II. In the Karabakh war, Armenia's army was completely crushed, territorial integrity was restored, and the result was internationally recognized. This fact once again demonstrates that in the modern era, the concept of “complete victory” is possible not only through military power but also through political will and strategic planning based on national unity.
