TEHRAN- Following two years of devastating war and unprecedented human suffering in Gaza, Hamas and Israel accepted a U.S.-brokered ceasefire on October 9 under Donald Trump’s controversial 20-point plan. While the agreement temporarily halts Israel’s military operations and paves the way for prisoner exchange and phased withdrawals, analysts warn that it leaves unresolved the root causes of the conflict and may only postpone another round of violence.

To better understand the political dynamics behind the ceasefire and its broader implications, Tehran Times spoke with Aleef Sabbagh, a Palestinian political analyst specialized in the Zionist regime’s strategic behavior and colonial policies.

In this exclusive interview, Sabbagh, who is based in Quds (Jerusalem), analyzes the internal and external pressures that compelled both sides to accept the deal, the role of Washington and regional mediators, and the future of Gaza’s political and humanitarian landscape under Trump’s “peace” framework.

Below is the full text of the interview:

In your view, what were the main political and diplomatic factors that led Hamas and Israel to agree to Trump’s 20-point plan?

A number of significant pressures on both Israel and Hamas brought them to this partial agreement. First, this is a partial deal that deliberately avoids the deep, strategic points of contention and serves each side’s short-term objectives. For example, it meets Hamas’s demand to halt the extermination campaign and to block plans for destruction and forced displacement.

“The U.S. seeks to act as the power capable of imposing solutions in Israel’s favor as an alternative to the UN, absolving Israel from the need to implement relevant UN resolutions and shield Israeli war criminals from prosecution at the ICC.” For Israel, it satisfies the demands of the families of the hostages and the majority of Israeli society calling for the release of their loved ones at almost any cost. Those demands were presented to Trump by influential American figures who support the Israeli hostages’ families, including Mrs. Adelson, who is very close to Trump.

With regard to Israel specifically: 1) Israel faced massive international pressure, including political isolation at the United Nations and real threats of economic sanctions from countries considered friendly to Israel. Some of those consequences were already implemented, such as canceled arms contracts and expulsions of Israeli diplomats — developments that the Trump administration noticed.It reached the point where, in his last conversation with Netanyahu before the deal was accepted, Trump is reported to have told him, “You cannot fight the whole world.”

2) Trump had given Netanyahu sufficient time to carry out all possible military measures to defeat Hamas, but those attempts failed; Trump came to the conclusion that Hamas could not be militarily eliminated and that the plan to transfer Gaza’s population to Sinai had also failed.He was convinced that Egypt, Jordan or any other state would not accept the forced relocation of Palestinians.

3) The Israeli military also applied pressure on the political leadership: the Chief of Staff repeatedly expressed fear that the army would be forced to remain in Gaza — especially in populated areas — for a long time and would suffer heavy casualties from ambushes and military actions. There were many other contributing reasons as well.

As for Hamas: 1) in addition to the factors mentioned above, Arab and Muslim leaders exerted heavy pressure on the movement and offered written Arab, Islamic and U.S. political guarantees if Hamas accepted the proposal. Those guarantees promised the release of the largest possible number of Palestinian detainees — especially Gazans detained after October 7, including some elite figures.

2) Guarantees that Trump would announce the end of the war before implementing the first phase.

3) Arab and Islamic assurances that the Arab–Islamic interpretation of Trump’s plan would be the one implemented — and even amended where necessary — in order to ensure that Gaza would not fall under Western international trusteeship and that its reconstruction would be supervised by Arab and Palestinian parties.

“Trump came to the conclusion that Hamas could not be militarily eliminated and that the plan to transfer Gaza’s population to Sinai had also failed.” Political and security administration would remain in Palestinian hands even if Hamas were not a partner in that administration. The guarantees also included that the Palestinians’ resistance weapons would not be handed over to Israel but would instead be frozen and monitored by Palestinian and Arab authorities. These promises may evolve in the coming days or months.

What effect will the withdrawal of Israeli forces, alongside the prisoner exchange, have on the regional balance of power? Could it lead to a redefinition of force between the two sides?

The withdrawal of occupation forces from populated areas does not in itself change the balance of power. Rather, it is in Israel’s interest to pull away from dangerous positions such as ambush-prone locations, and it is also in the Palestinians’ interest that Israel accepts the principle of withdrawal, even if that withdrawal is partial.

At the same time, withdrawal is a logistical necessity: it creates the conditions needed to search for deceased captives and to facilitate the delivery of aid to civilians without obstruction from occupying forces.

Given the role of regional mediators (Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey) and the United States in negotiations, how do you assess the future of regional relations and the roles of these actors?

Each mediator wants to prove to the world that it holds the decisive leverage and that it has the greatest credit for securing the agreement. Egypt in particular seeks — even more so than Qatar — to highlight this role. Turkey entered the mediation at the United States’ request to act both as pressure on Hamas and as a guarantor of some of Hamas’s demands.

“Trump had given Netanyahu sufficient time to carry out all possible military measures to defeat Hamas, but those attempts failed.”As for the United States, it was never a neutral mediator between Israel and Hamas; rather, it was a full partner in the aggression and the campaign of extermination.

The U.S. now seeks to act as the power capable of imposing solutions in Israel’s favor as an alternative to the United Nations, absolving Israel from the need to implement relevant UN resolutions. It may also be aiming to shield Israeli war criminals from prosecution at the International Criminal Court.

How do you see the prospects for reconstruction and meeting Gaza’s humanitarian needs after two years of brutal war and destruction? 

Reconstructing Gaza will be a complex political battle among regional and international actors. On one side is an American plan to seize parts of Gaza — especially the coastline, the sea, and gas and oil wells in Gaza’s economic waters — for international investors, including Trump’s associates; on the other side are Palestinian interests in using their land and sea for the benefit of the Palestinian people.

This struggle will require a unified Palestinian stance, official Arab and Islamic political support, and international law protections for Palestinian land and maritime rights.

Above all, the reconstruction process will be conditioned by Israel and the United States on issues such as the status of Gaza’s weaponry and possibly the displacement of resistance leaders from the Strip. These political battles could delay reconstruction for many years.