Peace, though fragile, seems to be holding in Gaza as Hamas has agreed to a ceasefire and Israel’s hardline stance has softened—at least temporarily. However, the question arises: who deserves credit for this breakthrough? Outgoing President Joe Biden or incoming President Donald Trump?
On the surface, it appears that President-elect Donald Trump’s unequivocal warning to Hamas played a pivotal role. Trump’s stern message, that “hell would break loose” if Hamas refused to cease hostilities and release hostages, may have pressured the group into compliance. Trump’s statement also hinted at broader consequences, referencing Iran’s overt support for Hamas and signalling a potentially tougher U.S. stance in the region under his administration.
Yet, both Biden and Trump have laid claim to this ceasefire-for-hostages deal, which took months of negotiations and involved key envoys from both administrations.
President Biden, in announcing the agreement, highlighted that the final deal closely mirrored a proposal his team had developed months earlier. During a farewell address, he emphasized his administration’s foundational work, saying, “This plan was developed and negotiated by my team and will be largely implemented by the incoming administration. That’s why I told my team to keep the incoming administration fully informed.”
Biden also framed the deal as a potential pathway to a broader peace framework in the Middle East, envisioning a future where an independent Palestinian state coexists with Israel. “For the Palestinian people, a credible pathway to a state of their own. And for the region, normalization and integration of Israel with its Arab neighbours,” he remarked. These comments suggest Biden’s administration viewed the ceasefire as part of a larger diplomatic strategy.
Trump, quick to assert his influence, claimed that his electoral victory had signalled to the world a new era of diplomacy. “This EPIC ceasefire agreement could have only happened as a result of our Historic Victory in November,” he posted on social media, adding that his administration would prioritize peace and the safety of Americans and allies.
A key figure in Trump’s contribution was his Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, who joined the final 96 hours of negotiations in Doha. Witkoff worked alongside Biden’s envoy, Brett McGurk, highlighting a rare moment of bipartisan cooperation during a fraught transition period.
Both Biden and Trump had vested interests in resolving the conflict before the transition of power. For Biden, the ceasefire marked a potential vindication of his foreign policy approach, aiming to conclude the deadliest chapter of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on a note of success. For Trump, securing the deal cleared a major issue from his agenda as he prepared to take office for a second term, freeing him to focus on other priorities.
Despite the collaborative effort, the political rivalry quickly resumed. Biden’s team credited Trump’s envoy for helping finalize the deal, while Trump’s camp argued that the prospect of a tougher administration compelled Hamas to comply.
The ceasefire, though significant, is but a small step toward lasting peace in the region. Biden’s vision of a two-state solution remains elusive, and Trump’s rhetoric suggests a more hardline approach to Middle Eastern politics. As the political dynamics shift, the ceasefire’s durability will be tested by the complex realities on the ground.
Ultimately, credit for the ceasefire belongs to both administrations, as their combined efforts brought months of stalled negotiations to fruition. However, the lasting legacy will depend on whether this agreement can serve as a foundation for meaningful progress in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.