Breakthrough for peace in the Middle East?

Gazeta Wyborcza also doesn't trust the agreement:

“Even if Hamas actually releases the living Israeli hostages and the bodies of those who died in captivity, and even if Israel releases its prisoners and withdraws its troops, both sides will look for a pretext to continue the fighting as soon as the ceasefire begins. Both Netanyahu and Hamas owe their political existence to this criminal war. Without it, the Israeli prime minister would long since have been sitting in the dock on charges of corruption and breach of duty in failing to protect the country from the terrorist attack on 7 October. ... And the uncompromising and merciless fight against Israel is the foundation of the Palestinian radicals' politics.”

Politiken sees peace as a real possibility now:

“Two years of war have severely weakened Hamas, and the same is true for its allies in Iran and Lebanon. Elections will soon take place in Israel, and the polls suggest that Netanyahu is set to lose power. Both the Palestinians and the Israelis may therefore soon have a new and hopefully significantly better leadership. The Arab countries must use all their influence to counter Palestinian violence and terror, and the US and EU must do everything in their power to pressure Israel to curb settlement construction and human rights abuses in the West Bank. ... Right now there is a rare chance for peace in Palestine.”

Now only international collaboration can ensure that the peace initiative succeeds, Avvenire demands:

“The United States must avoid once again pandering to Israel's worst impulses, as Trump did until recently, and ensure that Netanyahu, having secured the return of the hostages, doesn't seek an excuse to resume the war. The Arab and Muslim countries in the region (from Egypt to Turkey to the Gulf monarchies) must commit themselves personally, politically, financially and diplomatically and be prepared to deploy peacekeeping forces to manage the post-war period in the Gaza Strip. But Europe too, which has been so disappointingly silent and divided in the face of the horrors of the last two years, must finally take action.”

In a Facebook post, Middle East expert Ihor Semyvolos highlights Qatar's role in resolving the Gaza conflict:

“Trump had previously adopted a very benevolent attitude towards Netanyahu. His sudden change of stance began after the Israeli attack on Qatar. Threats to specific American business interests in this context led to a revision of the US president's position. ... In fact, Qatar - with fewer inhabitants than Tel Aviv, but with enormous financial potential - can provide timely advice to the right people involved in this game. Much to his astonishment, Bibi was forced to recognise that he simply didn't have enough cash in his pockets for this card game.”

Now is a good time to persuade Putin to reach a peace agreement with Ukraine, Political scientist Abbas Gallyamov writes on Facebook:

“The signing of the deal between Israel and Hamas raises a wave of expectations for Putin: 'If even the Palestinians and Jews have stopped firing at each other, why shouldn't the Russians and Ukrainians be able to do so too?' The refusal to conclude even a temporary ceasefire deal would now seem like evidence of a more unusual, more extreme insanity. The main thing is that someone - whether it's Trump or Zelensky - puts this into words now.”

Trump's unorthodox approach is precisely what might help him succeed, La Stampa comments with satisfaction:

“There is only one factor that distinguishes the story of these negotiating sessions in the Middle East from all previous ones. The presence of Donald Trump. It may seem paradoxical, but it is precisely the unpredictability, impetuosity and total indifference to institutions of the most unconventional president in the history of the United States that marks the real turning point at a negotiating table that already represents a break with the past. The very elements that make him unsettling as regards the resilience of the American democratic system at times are becoming crucial in the negotiations in Sharm el-Sheikh.”

If Trump can establish lasting peace, he really does deserve all honours, Helsingin Sanomat believes:

“Trump is changing perceptions of how peace is achieved. He views peace processes as deals and transactions in which there are winners and losers, as well as economic benefits. Traditional diplomatic channels and UN processes mean nothing to him. ... Trump strives for quick and spectacular results. His methods are at odds with the traditional ideals of peacemaking - but they may yet end wars. Trump threatens, applies pressure on his allies and fuels trade wars. ... If a lasting peace is achieved in the Middle East or Ukraine in Trump's name, he will deserve a Nobel Prize.”

Corriere della Sera addresses the still unresolved issue of the release of Palestinian prisoners:

“The Palestinians want the release of Marwan Barghouti and Ahmad Saadat, two of the main leaders of the second intifada who have been sentenced to multiple life sentences or long prison terms. Barghouti is seen by Palestinians as a symbol of resistance, and international diplomats, including some Israeli politicians, are convinced that he could become the successor to President Mahmoud Abbas. Above all, they are demanding the release of the terrorists who participated in the massacres of 7 October and the return of the bodies of Yahya Sinwar and his brother Mohammed, who together planned the massacre.”

Humans can and must overcome their own mental barriers, writes WOZ, referencing the work of philosopher Ernst Bloch:

“According to Bloch, human consciousness is not only the product of human existence, as Karl Marx described it, but is also endowed with a 'surplus' that can find expression as 'what has not yet become' in social utopias, art or daydreams. ... In view of the very real tragedy in the Middle East, such metaphysics may sound cynical. ... However, Bloch's principle of hope can also be understood as a collective power of imagination that influences the reality of the near future. Especially now that a plan to resolve the conflict is on the table, we in Europe should also practise solidarity and hope.”

Commenting in ABC, Nicolás Redondo Terreros, former secretary general of the Socialist Party of the Basque Country (PSE-EE), is optimistic that things could finally move in a positive direction in the Middle East:

“Today we see a small glimmer of hope in Trump's proposal. ... Russia has ceased to be relevant since the change of regime in Syria. ... The Arab countries are beginning to put the future before their hatred of the Jews. The insecurity of the Iranian regime after the targeted US bombings and Israel's beheading of terrorist organisations like Hezbollah give cause for hope. And while most of us are waiting with bated breath, hoping that the painstaking US initiative will be successful, the anti-establishment hard left and some adventurers continue to demonstrate - not so much for the rights of Gaza than for the destruction of Israel.”