Despite First-Phase Ceasefire, Gaza Remains Unstable... Will Trump's Peace Initiative Succeed? [Current Affairs Show]

Disarmament of Hamas Emerges as the Key Issue
Two-State Solution Also Faces Difficulties... Concerns Over New Conflicts

■ Broadcast: The Asia Business Daily 'So Jongseop's Current Affairs Show'

■ Host: Political Specialist So Jongseop

■ Director: Producer Park Sumin

■ Guest: Reporter Lee Hyunwoo

The Gaza peace initiative between Israel and Hamas, brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump, has already hit serious obstacles as it enters the second phase of ceasefire negotiations. While the exchange of hostages and the first phase withdrawal of Israeli forces proceeded relatively smoothly, the second phase negotiations for establishing a lasting peace have exposed stark differences between the two sides from the outset, raising concerns that the talks could collapse at any moment.

Abstract and Difficult-to-Implement Second Phase Conditions... Facing Obstacles

On the 13th (local time), at the Gaza Peace Summit held in Egypt, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that a ceasefire had been achieved between Israel and Hamas. Photo by EPA Yonhap News

The peace plan proposed by President Trump contained relatively concrete measures up to the first phase, but from the second phase onward, it consists of abstract and extremely difficult conditions to implement. The core of the second phase ceasefire can be summarized in three main points: First, the complete disarmament of Hamas; second, the establishment of a transitional government in Gaza under the supervision of the Peace Committee, an international monitoring body; and third, the deployment of a temporary international stabilization force made up of Arab countries to take over security responsibilities from Hamas in Gaza, while Israeli forces withdraw from most areas.

However, each of these conditions presents significant obstacles to realization. In particular, the issue of Hamas disarmament has become the most contentious point. Hamas insists that Gaza must ultimately be placed under the administration of the Palestinian Authority, and that it will only agree to disarmament if the Palestinian Authority becomes a fully independent state, completely separate from Israel. In effect, this sets the complete independence of Palestine as a prerequisite, a demand that is highly unlikely to be fulfilled in the short term.

On the other hand, Israel has taken a hardline stance, declaring that if Hamas does not disarm first, it will invalidate the ceasefire negotiations and resume military operations in Gaza. It is reported that the Israeli military has already begun preparing for renewed attacks in anticipation of a possible breakdown in talks. Furthermore, Israel maintains that it cannot trust the disarmament unless it is able to verify it directly, making it difficult to accept verification solely by international organizations.

One-State Solution vs. Two-State Solution... Israel and Hamas on Parallel Tracks

AP Yonhap News

The differing positions of Israel and the international community regarding Palestinian independence are also major obstacles in the second phase negotiations. Israel has traditionally advocated for the "one-state solution," which would see Israel remain the sole state encompassing all of Palestine, while granting the Palestinian Authority broad autonomy and launching large-scale reconstruction projects. The reason for Israel's insistence on this approach is clear: there are concerns that if Palestine becomes an independent state, new groups like Hamas could emerge.

In fact, Hamas was originally one of the political parties within the Palestinian Authority before splitting off and transforming into an armed faction. From Israel's perspective, if Palestine becomes a separate state, such armed groups could re-emerge amid political turmoil at any time. Furthermore, it is argued that genuine peace in the region requires comprehensive economic development in Palestinian territories, for which Israel's economic strength and technological capabilities are deemed essential.

In contrast, most Western countries except the United States, along with a significant number of United Nations member states, support the "two-state solution." This approach seeks to establish Palestine as a fully independent state, completely separate from Israel, and to build a permanent peace regime between the two sides. While the U.S. government was previously positive about the two-state solution, the situation changed after President Trump returned to office. President Trump has maintained an ambiguous stance, officially stating that he does not support either side.

The reason for President Trump's ambiguity is that both options carry significant risks. Supporting Israel's one-state solution could alienate all Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, posing a major diplomatic risk. In such a scenario, the United States and Israel could become completely isolated in the Middle East, and the current conflict could escalate into a regional war akin to a fifth Middle East war.

On the other hand, the two-state solution could garner support from Arab kingdoms, including Saudi Arabia, but would significantly strain the U.S.'s long-standing alliance with Israel. If the United States were to lead the two-state solution, it would also face the burden of mediating between Israel, Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority, and would need to commit substantial military and financial resources to maintain peace.

Additionally, drawing definitive territorial boundaries between Israel and Palestine could itself become a new source of conflict. Because Israel has built Jewish settlements throughout Palestine over several decades, immediate disputes are likely to arise over where Israeli and Palestinian territories should be demarcated. The United States cannot unilaterally set these boundaries either. Ultimately, both the one-state and two-state solutions have distinct advantages and disadvantages, making it difficult to declare one as clearly superior to the other.

If Trump's Middle East Peace Plan Succeeds... Concerns Over More Aggressive Use of Force

AP Yonhap News

The Dilemma of the Trump Administration and Changes in U.S. Strategy. It is clear that the Trump administration is eager to make this peace initiative a success and achieve a diplomatic victory. Trump has even made strong statements that if Hamas refuses to disarm, the United States will intervene directly to enforce disarmament. This signals a willingness by the United States to take direct military action if necessary.

In fact, since taking office, the Trump administration has dramatically increased military support for Israel in a short period of time and has not hesitated to take bold military actions, such as attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. The Trump administration's role in the Gaza war has been significant. If this peace initiative succeeds, it could set an important precedent for U.S. foreign policy. In other words, a new U.S. diplomatic strategy could emerge in which short-term, bold military actions are used to forcibly resolve issues in regions where core interests are at stake.

The issue is that the current region of greatest strategic interest for the United States is not the Middle East, but Asia, particularly East Asia. The United States views military tensions with China over the Taiwan Strait as its most pressing security concern and has deployed more than 60% of its total military forces to the Asia region. If the Trump administration were to apply the same aggressive and unconventional approach used in the Middle East to East Asia, the entire regional security landscape could be dramatically destabilized.

Ultimately, if the Gaza peace initiative achieves even partial success, its impact could spread far beyond the Middle East. If the Trump administration sets a precedent for combining military pressure and diplomatic mediation to achieve rapid results, similar approaches could be attempted in other conflict zones, such as the Korean Peninsula and the Taiwan Strait.

In particular, the Taiwan issue is considered the most likely flashpoint for direct military confrontation between the United States and China. If the United States attempts to resolve the issue through preemptive and aggressive military action as it did in the Middle East, China is also likely to respond forcefully. This would inevitably have direct consequences for U.S. allies in the region, including South Korea and Japan.

For South Korea, changes can be expected in the North Korean nuclear issue and the Korean Peninsula peace process. If the Trump administration takes a much more resolute and unilateral approach than before, the dialogue phase with North Korea could change rapidly, or military tensions could escalate. Japan, too, may expect more direct U.S. involvement in its maritime territorial disputes with China, such as the Senkaku Islands issue, but must also prepare for increased regional instability as a result.

In the end, the outcome of the Gaza peace initiative and the new U.S. diplomatic and security strategy revealed in the process will not be limited to the Middle East. It could serve as a signal that similar interventions may take place in other regions where U.S. core interests are at stake. Northeast Asian countries, including South Korea, must closely monitor these changes and develop strategic responses to prepare for the rapidly changing security environment.