A potential Gaza peace deal includes a commitment from Hamas to discuss the territory’s future, but this agreement remains couched in “generalities,” raising questions about whether it can lead to a real and lasting peace.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that while the hostage-release component of the deal is nearly finalized, the post-war plan is much less concrete. He stated that Hamas has agreed “in principle and generalities” to discuss “what’s going to happen afterwards,” acknowledging that many details need to be worked out.
This vagueness is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it allowed negotiators to secure a broad agreement without getting bogged down in the most contentious issue: who will govern Gaza. This helped get the deal to the “90 per cent done” stage.
On the other hand, a peace built on an ambiguous foundation is inherently unstable. President Donald Trump has tried to force clarity by demanding Hamas cede power, but this is a U.S. demand, not a negotiated point in the current deal. This fundamental disagreement is likely to surface as soon as the immediate crisis is over.
For now, the focus is on stopping the fighting. However, for the peace to last, these “generalities” will need to be transformed into a detailed and mutually-accepted political solution—a task that may prove even more difficult than ending the war itself.