There was worldwide relief when the last Israeli hostages were finally handed over by Hamas to the ICRC and could embrace their loved ones again. But has this brought peace any closer?
To me, this moment — and the diplomacy surrounding it — reflects how international politics too often works today: reactive, not preventive. It was a firefighting intervention, launched only after the blaze had grown so large that action became unavoidable. By then, much of the lasting damage had already been done.
If we apply the principles from Dare We Hope?, one thing becomes clear: it was not international order, such as respect for humanitarian law, that prevailed, but power politics. The short-term easing of tensions may calm the situation for a while, but the balance has shifted so heavily toward Israel and the United States that sustainable stability is unlikely, despite the involvement of several Arab states.
For lasting peace, three conditions must be fulfilled:
- The stronger side — Israel and the United States — must abandon the illusion that military superiority alone can ensure security. Deterrence without diplomacy leads to deadlock. Every operation that disregards civilian suffering fuels resentment and radicalization.
- The Palestinian leadership must free itself from the grip of armed factions. Only legitimate political representation can offer a credible path toward statehood and coexistence.
- External powers must stop instrumentalizing the conflict. The U.S., EU, Iran, Russia, and China all hold influence, but they must use it to de-escalate rather than compete for advantage. Peace cannot be outsourced to powers treating the region as a proxy battlefield.
True peace requires a paradigm shift — one based on mutual respect, shared security, and the courage to move beyond the logic of confrontation. It will not come easily, but it remains possible.