Thomas Friedman praises Trump and warns of what awaits him after the Gaza agreement

In his New York Times article, prominent author and pro-Israel analyst Thomas Friedman offered an optimistic yet cautious reading of President Donald Trump’s efforts to stop the war in Gaza.

Friedman believes the success of the first phase of Trump’s plan, which includes a ceasefire and a prisoner and detainee exchange, deserves international acclaim for three main reasons that could impact the future of both the Middle East and the United States.

The first of these reasons, in Friedman’s opinion, is that reaching this point required exceptional diplomatic effort in a highly complex region.

Trump and his team had to gain the trust of several parties simultaneously: Israel, Hamas, Qatar, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, and the Palestinian Authority.

The second reason, as Friedman explains, is that this step is only the beginning of a multi-stage peace plan whose actual implementation will be much more difficult.

The Trump administration will be required to oversee the disarmament of Hamas, the formation of a multinational security force to fill the vacuum left by Israel’s withdrawal, the reconstruction of the completely destroyed Gaza Strip, and the establishment of a transitional government to govern the Strip, the author explains.

He believes that Trump will need to remain engaged throughout his presidency for the plan to be successfully completed, warning the US president against exaggerating when he claims he has ended the war in Gaza and achieved eternal peace, as this may reflect a miscalculation of the magnitude of the challenges ahead.

However, the author reiterates that the project’s success to its conclusion could reopen the door to a two-state solution, under a new formula that combines Palestinian, Arab, and international sponsorship of Gaza’s future, and may later extend to the West Bank.

Friedman has been harshly critical of the US president in his previous articles, but this time he praised his negotiating style, describing it as unique.

The third reason Friedman hopes Trump will be credited with engineering this peace plan has nothing to do with the Middle East, he says, but stems from a perhaps false hope that it will inspire him to make peace in America as well.

Friedman believes that the Trump plan represents a new model for addressing the conflict, based on the fact that Israelis and Palestinians have lost the ability to reach peace on their own after the collapse of trust between them, and that achieving stability will require permanent guarantees from the United States and Arab states.

Friedman analyzes Trump’s unconventional negotiating style, based on pure pragmatism and a disregard for moral values.

He believes that Trump isn’t interested in categorizing regimes or holding them accountable for their human rights records, but rather focuses solely on results.

In terms of outcomes, Friedman believes that both Hamas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, will present the agreement as an achievement, even though neither achieved what they sought.

In Friedman’s view, Netanyahu lost his bet after relying entirely on Trump and losing all his other allies.

When Trump, under pressure from Arabs and Europeans, redirected his plan toward a genuine peace process that prevented the annexation of Gaza or the West Bank, Netanyahu no longer had any leverage.

Friedman cites Israeli expert Gideon Greenstein, who described Trump’s 20-point plan as a pivotal opportunity to revive the fundamental principles upon which diplomacy has been based since the Camp David Accords.

According to him, it reaffirms the illegitimacy of unilateral annexation and provides Palestinians with a political horizon toward self-determination and political separation from Israel.

Although Friedman has frequently criticized the US president in his previous articles, this time he praised his negotiating style, which he described as unique.

Friedman criticized Trump’s tendency to divide and incite against his opponents, suggesting that he call Democratic Party leaders for a reconciliation meeting at Camp David to sign an “American-American peace treaty.”

He even went further, suggesting that Trump would be worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize “if all phases of the plan succeed in rebuilding a path toward Palestinian-Israeli peace.”

The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced this morning, Friday, that Venezuelan Maria Corina Machado had won the Nobel Peace Prize.

The committee said in a statement that Machado won “thanks to her tireless work in promoting the democratic rights of the Venezuelan people and her struggle for a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.”

On the domestic front, Friedman hopes that Trump’s experience in Gaza will inspire him to change his political behavior within the United States, urging him to make peace in America just as he seeks peace in the Middle East.

Friedman criticizes Trump’s tendency toward division and incitement against his opponents, suggesting that he invite Democratic Party leaders to a reconciliation meeting at Camp David to sign an American-American peace treaty.

He asserts that his success in doing so would make him more popular and respected.

Addressing the president, he said, “If you continue to play the role of unifier in the Middle East and divider in America, the Gaza plan will become a footnote in a failed presidential record”.