THIS year’s Nobel Peace Prize announcement carried a certain intrigue. It stirred a wave of questions. Is the prize still awarded in true spirit and are there any possibilities for the Nobel Peace Prize to fall prey to political maneuverings? But when the laureates were finally announced, the skepticism seemed to fade.
Amid these global reflections on peace and credibility, the Israeli Cabinet made headlines of its own. It approved US-backed ceasefire proposal presented by President Donald Trump. The announcement comes after three days of indirect negotiations in Egypt and two-year-long Gaza conflict. Trump said in a post on social media, “This means that all of the hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw their troops to an agreed-upon line as the first steps toward a strong, durable, and everlasting peace.”
The ceasefire deal promises a pause in fighting, staged prisoner/hostage exchanges and an international role in reconstruction. While there is visible joy among Palestinians in general, Gazans in particular, many observers think this is not an instant remedy. Two years of war have left the territory devastated, basic systems collapsed and deep distrust of political promises entrenched. Doubts about the Israeli leadership’s readiness to fully withdraw or to accept Gaza’s long-term political future, together with questions about the political incentives driving the US mediation, explain why the humanitarian emergency is likely to continue even after an initial truce.
Let’s understand the chronology of ceasefire.
After the Hamas-led strikes inside Israel and civilian abductions, Israel’s offensive gained momentum and the violence soon escalated into a protracted, high-casualty conflict. The context to this Hamas-led strike has been covered in details since 2023 by almost all publications.
Several alternatives and postponed implementation towards hostage exchanges and reconstruction to guarantees on security and governance in Gaza were discussed from 2024 to early 2025. While international mediators from Egypt, Qatar, the United States, and the UN, proposed phased ceasefire agreements, produced drafts and worked on short-term pauses, they failed miserably to deliver permanent solutions to sufferings of the Palestinians.
Late 2025 – A renewed Trump-led push. Early this month, President Trump unveiled a multi-phase proposal to halt fighting and secure the release of remaining hostages. Israel’s cabinet formally approved the plan on October 9–10. The ceasefire deal includes an immediate pause in major operations along with staged exchanges of hostages and prisoners. Reopening of crossings for humanitarian aid and an international reconstruction effort with US leadership are also part of the plan. The agreement was hailed as a breakthrough by some governments and cautiously welcomed by other international actors.
Meanwhile, attacks continued on the Palestinians, In July this year, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Trump that he had nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize and handed him a nomination letter during a meeting at the White House. And on 9 October, Netanyahu posted on his X account, “Give @realDonaldTrump the Nobel Peace Prize — he deserves it!”
President Trump has publicly sought high-profile diplomatic achievements. He has been publicly and privately associated with efforts that could bolster his international legacy. Several news outlets and analysts have reported that Trump’s pursuit of a Nobel Peace Prize has been a factor in pushing for headline-grabbing deals and not as proof of bad faith, but as a plausible motive that shaped the intensity and timing of US mediation. Trump understands that the nominations or high visibility peace achievements can carry domestic political benefits.
Trump had been blowing his trumpet of so called “peace.” He claimed initiating peace between Ukraine and Russia, stopping Operation Sindoor between India and Pakistan and claimed that his administration mediated between Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda. While he claimed that he “stopped”’ the conflict in DRC, the fighting continued unabated.
Wanting a prize or legacy does not automatically invalidate a deal, but when a deal is driven partly by political calendars or image-making, it increases the risk of stressing more on rapid, visible steps (hostage releases, a public truce) over the harder work required to secure long-term protection, reconstruction and governance outcomes for civilians.
Why distrust in Netanyahu’s intentions is widespread; (facts first):
While this article is in progress, Al Jazeera released the images of Israeli tank firing towards Gaza civilians, when they were optimistically returning to their homes after the ceasefire announcement.
Israel’s leadership has repeatedly stated that “Hamas’ rule has to come to an end” and that removing or dismantling Hamas is a precondition for a full Israeli withdrawal or normalisation of life in Gaza. Those public red lines make any future sequencing, ceasefire, withdrawal, governance reform, contingent and politically fraught.
The Israeli government has only repeated cycles of partial agreements and resumed operations thereafter. Over the past two years there have been multiple phases of temporary pauses, hostage exchanges and renewed offensives. That pattern is simple: they pause → limited relief → renewed military pressure – has made populations and aid agencies skeptical that a phase-one deal will convert into a durable change on the ground without strong, enforceable guarantees.
The Israeli Cabinet’s approval of a plan can include caveats and staged implementations tied to security assessments. These give political leaders discretion in implementation timing and scope. That discretion becomes a focal point for mistrust when civilians still face daily life-and-death shortages. Reuters and AP reporting on the cabinet vote stressed on staged implementation and monitoring and not an immediate, unconditional return to normal life in Gaza.
The signs are evident when all of the events of the last two years are considered. The accord alters the rhetoric and creates a pathway for de-escalation. However, written obligations and political incentives allow for setbacks that could prolong civilian suffering.
How could anyone forget that the same hands that endorsed relentless bombings and suffocating embargoes cannot now claim the laurels of peace? Now Nobel Peace Prize is already awarded and Donald Trump, despite being nominated by Benjamin Netanyahu, has not been recognised. The mirage of reconciliation is exposed once more, as confirmed by the attacks on Gazans following the ceasefire announcement.
For many Palestinians, this moment brings no relief and such delayed ceasefire depicts the collapse of international diplomacy, against the horrific backdrop of Gaza’s devastation, each ceasefire arrives as a ray of optimism, only to fade into an unsettling silence. The stillness is not the tranquillity of peace, but rather a heavy silence of a people worn down by decades of displacement, blockades, imprisonment, torture, and broken promises.
For Palestinians, the announcement is not about who won or lost the world’s most coveted prize, but about the world’s unwillingness to confront the apartheid that defines their daily existence.
While the Nobel Committee celebrates humanity’s pursuit of harmony, the fear among Palestinians lingers and when the applause fades, the checkpoints, walls, and surveillance still remain. The prize may have chosen its rightful laureates, but for Gaza, peace, still feels painfully out of reach.
______________
Sajida A Zubair is an educator, freelance writer, and documentary scriptwriter. She is also a Counseling Faculty member at IPERC.The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily subscribe to them.
