Miracles can appear in various forms, and a notable one has recently caught attention. The New York Times has, surprisingly, offered positive remarks about President Trump.
His task? Garnering worldwide backing for a detailed peace proposal aimed at Gaza. It wasn’t easy, but with a talented negotiation team by his side, they managed to pull it off.
This effort was so significant that a headline in Monday’s Times dubbed it a “huge breakthrough.”
The article further stated that the UN Security Council’s unanimous vote in favor of the president’s plan marked “a major diplomatic victory for the Trump administration.”
There’s much more to this, including the lives already saved—both Jewish and Arab—and the promise of saving even more as the plan is put into effect.
The Security Council’s 13-0 vote, with China and Russia abstaining, extends what might be the only real opportunity for broader peace in the Middle East seen in years.
It’s also noteworthy that China and Russia, both permanent Security Council members, opted not to use their veto power, signaling their acknowledgment that any alternative to war in Gaza is limited.
One takeaway from this good news includes a caution for Times reporters who might add bylines to this article. Farnaz Fassihi, a UN reporter, may have overlooked the internal guideline that discourages any positive comments about Trump.
The relentless wave of anti-Trump sentiment in left-leaning publications is both expected and, frankly, a bit exhausting. The formula is pretty straightforward: If Trump supports it, the Times will oppose it.
Facts and fairness seem to take a backseat in these cases. That said, just as some of Ms. Fassihi’s more zealous colleagues might express indignation over her insufficient negativity toward Trump, they could even resort to social media to push for her dismissal.
From a broader perspective, I see this Security Council vote as another miracle engineered by Mr. Trump and his team regarding Gaza.
The first miracle? A 20-point plan aimed at establishing a ceasefire and facilitating a hostage exchange back in September. Initially, it seemed pointless, but Israel signed on quickly—thanks to a bit of persuasion—along with numerous European countries and key regional players like Türkiye, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.
With Arab backing, especially from Qatar—Hamas’s main supporter—the plan gained traction, compelling even Hamas leaders to recognize its urgency. They eventually began to release hostages they had held for over two years.
In fact, the weeks that followed were among the calmest since Hamas invaded on October 7, 2003. Now, with UN support on board, there’s a glimmer of hope for lasting peace.
Yet, considerable challenges remain. Achieving President Trump’s ambitious plan might just represent a third miracle.
I think that miracle would involve disarming Hamas. Without that, all other interests in the area are at risk, overshadowed by the extreme determination of those who are intent on violence.
We’ve recently witnessed chilling public executions by Hamas—another glimpse into the chaotic hell they’ve created.
The White House asserts that Hamas pledged to disarm when they backed this initial plan, but evidence for actual compliance seems lacking.
This plan includes demilitarizing a portion of the region and establishing an international stabilization force intended to help maintain peace.
This foreign troop presence, which would occupy areas currently controlled by Israel as the IDF withdraws, makes the Security Council’s endorsement crucial.
Approval would also make Trump’s plan legally binding under international law and would likely motivate several nations to commit troops.
An important aspect of the plan is forming a “technocratic, apolitical Palestinian commission” responsible for providing essential services in Gaza. To address Israeli concerns, this commission will be overseen by an international body, known as the Peace Commission, led by President Trump.
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to join, as this group will also manage international funding allocated for Gaza’s rebuilding.
Simultaneously, the plan stipulates that Hamas and other factions will relinquish governance over Gaza. Plus, extensive military infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon manufacturing facilities, is to be dismantled.
This detailed plan signifies Trump’s ambitious vision for peace in the Middle East. Another indication was his warm reception of Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, during a visit to the White House.
By involving MBS in discussions linked to the 2018 murder of a Washington Post columnist, Trump has signaled a willingness to bring the crown prince into the fold of the Abraham Accords—an agreement established during his first term that aims to normalize relations with Israel.
Historically, Saudi Arabia has insisted that a Palestinian state be integral to any treaty. However, the current plan mentions the possibility but does not commit to forming such a group, with Trump arguing that creating one now would essentially reward Hamas.
He’s got a point: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared that a Palestinian state is not likely to happen during his tenure.
And after Hamas’ actions on October 7, it seems unthinkable that a successor government in Israel would support the emergence of a Palestinian state.
There are so many complex issues, especially regarding territorial boundaries. Honestly, given Trump’s stance on not wanting to incentivize Hamas, I’m a bit puzzled about how a Palestinian state will arise from what’s left in Gaza.
If the Saudi leadership is as shrewd as some believe, they won’t let this issue impede the progress that could benefit millions in the region under Trump’s proposal.
This plan is so promising and comprehensive that, if fully executed, it might just earn Trump that coveted Nobel Peace Prize.
