The Ball Is in Trump’s Court

For months, the world has been searching for a breakthrough in Gaza. Every proposal collapsed. Every ceasefire failed. Every promise dissolved into another round of bloodshed.

Then came what many described as the most significant political development in months. Hamas accepted an agreement that reportedly addressed one of the central demands made by Israel and its allies: the question of weapons. President Donald Trump quickly welcomed the deal. He called it a historic breakthrough. Those words now carry consequences. A blessing from the President of the United States is not simply another diplomatic statement. It is not the usual expression of hope that often follows failed negotiations. By publicly endorsing the agreement, Trump did something much bigger. He attached his political credibility to its success.

That matters because this process is different from previous mediation efforts. For years, Arab states, regional actors, and international organisations have acted as intermediaries between Hamas and Israel. Their job was to facilitate dialogue. They could persuade. They could encourage. They could pressure. But they could not enforce.

Trump’s role is different. His administration is not presenting itself as another mediator standing between two unwilling parties. It is presenting itself as the architect of a political framework for Gaza. The initiative carries Washington’s fingerprints from beginning to end. It is backed by the diplomatic weight of the United States and strengthened by international endorsement.

That changes the equation. If the initiative succeeds, the credit belongs to Trump. If it fails, the responsibility follows the same path. The tragedy is that reality wasted little time in testing that responsibility.

Within a day of the agreement receiving Trump’s endorsement, Gaza witnessed another deadly massacre. Civilians once again paid the price for political paralysis. The images reminded everyone of a painful truth. Agreements on paper mean little if they cannot survive the next sunrise. This is where the real test begins. Trump now faces a question that no press conference can avoid. Can he make Israel honour the agreement that he publicly celebrated? That is the only question that matters.

The world did not embrace Trump’s role because it suddenly discovered confidence in his broader foreign policy. His record remains deeply divisive. His approach continues to provoke sharp disagreement across much of the international community.

But Gaza has always been different.

Many governments quietly accepted a simple assumption. If there is one leader with enough political influence to compel Israel to make difficult decisions, it is the President of the United States. Whether one likes Trump or not is almost beside the point. The assumption rests on power, not popularity. That assumption is now being tested. It is easy to announce a breakthrough. It is much harder to defend one.
History is full of peace plans that looked impressive during the press conference and irrelevant a week later. The Middle East has become a museum of ambitious declarations followed by predictable disappointments. Every generation has produced another “historic opportunity.” Most have ended as historical footnotes.

This agreement risks joining the same collection. Unless Trump proves otherwise. There is also a difference between sponsoring an agreement and guaranteeing its implementation. A sponsor celebrates signatures. A guarantor enforces commitments. The distinction is uncomfortable because it demands action instead of applause.

If Washington truly believes this agreement represents a turning point, then it must demonstrate that violations carry consequences. Otherwise, every party learns the same lesson it has learned for decades: agreements are optional, commitments are flexible, and international guarantees expire almost immediately after the cameras leave. That is not diplomacy. That is political theatre.

The coming days will reveal which role Trump has chosen for himself. Will he act as the architect of a peace process willing to defend his own initiative? Or will he become just another mediator issuing statements while events on the ground move in the opposite direction?

The answer will not come from speeches. It will not come from social media posts. It will not come from another carefully worded statement expressing concern. It will come from facts. Does the violence stop? Does Israel comply with the framework that Trump endorsed? Does the agreement survive its first serious challenge? These questions require decisions, not declarations.

For years, the international community searched for someone capable of moving the Gaza file beyond endless cycles of negotiation and war. Trump accepted that role. More importantly, the world allowed him to accept it. That means expectations have changed. When you claim ownership of a peace initiative, you also inherit responsibility for its fate. The agreement is no longer merely Hamas’ commitment or Israel’s obligation. It has become Trump’s credibility.

And credibility is measured not by what a leader promises before an agreement, but by what he delivers after it. The massacre has already asked the first question. The world is now waiting for the first answer. The ball is no longer in Gaza. The ball is firmly in Trump’s court.
____________________________
The writer is Ambassador of Palestine to Bangladesh