Trump’s real-estate diplomacy delivers fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas

The ceasefire reached between Israel and Hamas is the result of weeks of manoeuvring coordinated by U.S. President Donald Trump and a small circle of American and Arab negotiators. More than a feat of traditional diplomacy, it reflects a tactic borrowed from the property world: secure a “yes” in principle, and leave the details for later.

This approach allowed negotiators to overcome entrenched resistance, compelling both Benjamin Netanyahu and the Hamas leadership to sign a document neither side would have likely accepted under normal circumstances.

At the end of September, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, Trump met representatives from Arab countries, Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia. From those meetings emerged a twenty-point plan — long discussed but never formalised — encompassing the exchange of hostages and prisoners, a gradual withdrawal of Israeli troops, and the end of Hamas’s rule in Gaza.

What made this effort different was not the content but the determination with which Washington and its regional partners pushed it through. The agreement was presented as a fait accompli, making refusal politically untenable.

The operation was not Trump’s alone. Jared Kushner, son-in-law to the U.S. President and former architect of the Abraham Accords, re-emerged alongside Steve Witkoff, a trusted negotiator and New York property developer. Their “real-estate” approach shaped the process: secure a broad framework first, project confidence to sustain momentum, and postpone the difficult details for later.

Arab nations and Turkey were instrumental in proposing an international “Peace Council,” chaired by Trump, to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction.

Politically, the outcome is mixed. Trump can claim a symbolic triumph that bolsters his international image — and perhaps rekindles his talk of a Nobel Peace Prize. Netanyahu emerges weakened, bound to a deal he might not have signed without intense American pressure. Hamas, meanwhile, secures the release of thousands of prisoners and a chance to remain politically relevant after the conflict.

For now, the war appears paused. It’s a victory on all fronts, albeit superficially. How peace will be achieved seems almost secondary.

Yet seasoned observers urge caution. The agreement covers only “phase one”, namely ceasefire, prisoner exchanges and partial troop withdrawal. The hard questions remain — from Hamas’s disarmament to Gaza’s reconstruction and the future political framework. The risk is that the accord will unravel as soon as these unresolved issues return to the table.

The shadow of January’s failed ceasefire — which collapsed within weeks — looms large. Should “phase two” falter, this plan may be remembered less as a step toward peace and more as a masterclass in political theatre.

For now, it stands as a beginning not an end. A fragile truce built on shifting ground. Without a durable political settlement rooted in a two-state solution, lasting peace and stability in the region will remain out of reach.