Palestinians Doubt Trump as Israel Undermines the Gaza Ceasefire

italiatelegraph

Altaf Moti
Pakistan

When President Donald Trump brokered a fragile cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in October 2025, many Palestinians felt a rare spark of hope. The agreement paused nearly two years of intensive conflict. It offered hostage releases, promises of aid, and a pathway—at least on paper—toward reconstruction. Yet that hope is fragile. Palestinian trust in Washington, and in Trump personally, is limited. History, recent events, and the real balance of leverage all explain why only consistent and forceful U.S. pressure on Israel can make the truce durable.

The first problem is implementation. The cease-fire depends on Israeli willingness to hold back its military, allow substantive humanitarian access, and accept political steps that would change the status quo in Gaza. Within days of the truce, Israeli strikes resumed after the military said its troops were attacked in Rafah. Even more telling was what happened after Israel recovered 20 of its hostages alive through negotiated releases. Instead of consolidating the cease-fire, Israeli forces launched renewed bombardments. At the same time, it failed to fulfill its own obligations under the cease-fire. The majority of Palestinian prisoners remained behind bars, and Israel withheld the release of many Palestinian bodies, despite earlier commitments. Aid deliveries were temporarily halted, crossings were tightened again, and entire neighborhoods came under renewed fire. These actions demonstrated opportunism rather than good faith, and they underscored how easily Israel could manipulate the cease-fire’s terms to suit its military and political objectives. Without an external enforcement mechanism, the truce is only as strong as Israel’s discretion.
Second, Americans do not see the same reality. The U.S. public discourse, under Trump, has emphasized the truce as a diplomatic success and framed the administration’s role as a neutral broker. Trump and his envoys, including Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, have traveled to the region to shore up the deal. But diplomatic presence is not the same as pressure. Visits, warm words, and photo opportunities can stabilize a moment. They do not by themselves compel a government to change policy when political survival inside that government depends on hard-line postures.
Third, the structural relationship between the U.S. and Israel matters. Successive U.S. administrations have offered Israel political cover, arms, and intelligence while asking for limited concessions. When Washington’s support is unconditional, Israeli leaders face fewer domestic costs for military actions that violate cease-fires. That pattern makes Palestinian skepticism rational. Palestinians know that even when the U.S. negotiates an agreement, it often fails to back up implementation with tangible consequences for breaches. The result is repeated cycles of truce and violence.
Fourth, the credibility question is personal as well as institutional. Many Palestinians remember past American-brokered deals that delivered limited results. Trump’s political base and congressional allies include strong Israel supporters who resist pressure on Israeli policy. That political reality constrains what Trump can do without clashing with key domestic actors. Moreover, critics point to conflicts of interest around private envoys and business ties as reasons to question how impartial and forceful U.S. diplomacy will be. These are not abstract worries: they have real consequences for whether Washington will impose costs on violations.
So what would it take for Palestinians to trust the cease-fire—and for it to last? The answer is straightforward: measurable, sustained U.S. pressure on Israel. That pressure should include clear red lines and predictable consequences. It should not rely solely on statements of concern or shuttle diplomacy. Concrete steps could include conditioning military assistance, setting verification mechanisms for the flow of aid, independent monitoring teams on the ground, and public demand for rapid opening of crossings such as Rafah. These steps would shift the political cost for Israel when it violates the agreement.
Independent monitoring is essential. A cease-fire without neutral observers is a paper promise. International monitors, backed by the U.S., could track violations, document aid deliveries, and report in real time. That would reduce the space for unilateral Israeli claims of provocation and for denials of humanitarian obstruction. It would also give Palestinians a clearer basis to press for enforcement.
Conditioning U.S. support would be politically difficult, but effective. The United States supplies Israel with military hardware, intelligence, and diplomatic support. If Washington ties elements of that relationship to compliance with cease-fire terms, Israeli leaders would face domestic trade-offs between short-term military actions and long-term strategic benefits. That kind of leverage can change behavior. Without it, Israel has no strong external reason to accept long-term constraints on its use of force.
Finally, Palestinian trust also requires addressing humanitarian reality. Cease-fires are not only about stopping bullets. They are about food, water, medicines, and reconstruction. Reopening crossings, guaranteeing safe corridors for relief, and committing funds to rebuild homes and hospitals are immediate needs. If Palestinians see tangible improvements in daily life tied to the truce, trust can grow. If promises of aid remain delayed or politicized, the cease-fire will crumble back into violence.
In short, Palestinians have reason to be skeptical of Trump and of any U.S.-brokered pause that lacks enforcement. The truce is a necessary first step. It is not enough. For the cease-fire to stop being a pause and to become a foundation for a real political process, the United States must do more than broker. It must press—and be seen to press—Israel consistently and publicly. Only then can the fragile calm be transformed into durable protection for Palestinian lives and rights.
If Washington declines to use leverage, the agreement will remain vulnerable. For Palestinians, trust will follow concrete action: independent monitors, conditioned support, open aid corridors, and visible reconstruction. Absent these measures, hope risks becoming another short-lived interlude between waves of violence.