The Beginning of Peace

Intelligence services had been working on it for months—if not years—but the breakthrough came between Thursday, October 9, and Friday, October 10, 2025. With a cease-fire deal brokered by Washington, Hamas on Monday released the last Israeli hostages still alive, and Israel freed about 2,000 Palestinian detainees (both prisoners and administrative detainees), in parallel with a multilateral summit in Sharm el-Sheikh co-chaired by U.S. President Donald Trump and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

Trump was a guest at the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. There he proclaimed “the end of the Gaza war” and the start of a phase of reconstruction and regional normalization.

The Egyptian summit brought together more than twenty leaders and delegations to seal the truce politically and coordinate phase two: reconstruction, security, and Gaza’s provisional governance. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not on stage. According to some behind-the-scenes accounts, this was due to pressure from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Iraqi Prime Minister Muhammad Sudani. The stated goal is to make peace “guaranteed” by an international framework that includes the United States, Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey.

Israeli Hostages: Names, Faces, Symbols

The scene that moved Israel—and not only Israel—was the return of the last 20 hostages alive. Broadcasters told of night-time embraces at reception bases and of the four coffins delivered in parallel, still to be conclusively identified by forensic authorities. Among the images that became symbols was Omri Miran’s embrace with his father upon arrival. It is the emotional seal on a file that kept an entire country suspended for two years.

The most lacerating part—the hostages—comes to a close, opening political space for the “after”: security, reconstruction, institutions. But it also raises sensitive issues: the return of the remains of murdered hostages (which is not yet complete) and how to handle criminal accountability for crimes committed during the war. These are dossiers that could still light political fuses if not handled transparently and on a clear timeline.

Palestinian Prisoners: Numbers, Geography, Expectations

On the Palestinian side, the exchange meant prison gates reopening for around 2,000 people, with repatriations to the West Bank and transfers to Gaza. Squares in the West Bank celebrated with marches and flags; at the same time, families of those left inside felt bitterness over selection criteria that were not always clear. The release is not a collective moral pardon but a political tool: it defuses the “detainees” factor as a social fuse, reduces humanitarian pressure, and creates a minimum of political capital to ask—in return—for internal order, an end to attacks, and the launch of credible civil administration in Gaza.

Trump, the Knesset, and the Strategic Message

Trump’s speech at the Knesset had three axes:

1. “The war is over”: Israel “has done everything it could with military means”; now it must shift to peace with multilayered security guarantees.
2. Reconstruction: costs estimated in the tens of billions; corridors for materials, energy, and healthcare; control mechanisms to avoid rebuilding tunnels and arsenals.
3. Regional architecture: cooperation with key Arab actors, even the hypothesis of normalization with Iran in the medium term, if conditions of non-hostility and a stop to proxy warfare are met.

Politically, the message is clear: Washington is reclaiming the driver’s seat. Choosing to speak at the Knesset—with Netanyahu beside him—means: allies, yes, but enough with the “only hammer” approach; institutions and verifiable agreements are now needed.

Sharm el-Sheikh: The Photo of Peace (and What the Photo Doesn’t Show)

In Sharm el-Sheikh, the family photo told much about real-world geopolitics: around thirty leaders and delegations, with Giorgia Meloni the only woman on stage. Many noted the physical absence of Israelis and Hamas representatives in the signing photo—a procedural choice but a meaningful one—while the operational axis (U.S., Egypt, Qatar, Turkey) took ownership of guaranteeing the cease-fire and monitoring reconstruction. Trump drew media attention with proclamations and the theatricality typical of his style; this does not detract from the political substance: a framework of written commitments exists, with a “Declaration” binding signatories and sponsors to uphold the truce and the second phase. The lack of belligerents in the room may avoid polemical grandstanding, but it increases the sponsors’ responsibility to enforce commitments on the ground.

Meloni, Mediterranean Leadership, and the European Void

For Italy, Sharm was a major political stage. Giorgia Meloni—the only woman among about thirty leaders—underscored Mediterranean centrality and a conservative posture: standing with the United States, engaging key Arab actors, and bringing a European voice where the Union as a whole appeared divided and timid. This is an image dividend but also substance: those who show up, count; those who hold back, chase. Rome sits at the table where Mediterranean security is being designed: order first, borders, energy, deterrence, and development as pillars to stabilize the southern shore. The EU? It participated, but without a single voice and without a recognizable European plan: here Meloni filled a clear leadership vacuum.

Hamas Today: Executions, “Order,” and Fear. Who Pays the Price

The hours following the swap revealed the other side: Hamas’s tightening grip inside Gaza. Reports and dispatches recount summary executions and a “cleansing” campaign against alleged criminals, collaborators, or rivals; a show of force that kills Palestinian civilians, terrorizes neighborhoods, and seeks to reconsolidate control after two years of devastation. It is the classic logic of armed movements: demonstrate power in order not to lose power.

Why is this happening?

• Governance vacuum: with infrastructure destroyed and institutions weak, those with weapons impose order.
• Internal competition: factions, clans, criminal networks, and remnants of other groups seek space; Hamas represses to avoid being unseated.
• Post-deal narrative: after having “negotiated,” Hamas must show its militants it has not “softened”; internal violence becomes currency for credibility.
• Pre-emptive intimidation: striking “collaborators” serves to deter dissent and pockets of protest over hunger, looting, and lack of services.

In parallel, border incidents and lethal fire in a cease-fire context fuel a spiral of suspicion; a few violations (real or alleged) are enough to reignite tensions. That is why de-confliction mechanisms and credible civil policing will be decisive.

The Three Dossiers That Decide Everything (and Must Be Handled Now)

Verifiable security: Without third-party monitoring of weapons, tunnels, financial flows, and borders, the truce unravels. Clear rules of engagement, hotlines for local crises, and automatic penalties for violators are needed. Here the sponsors (U.S.–Egypt–Qatar–Turkey) must bring helmets and notebooks, not just signatures.

Reconstruction with controls: Rebuilding homes, hospitals, aqueducts, and power grids with traceability of materials and funds is the only antidote to the return of “military concrete.” Conditional aid tied to objectives (schools, clinics, public works) is the way to combine humanity and security.

Governance of Gaza: A civil administration accountable for services (water, bread, work) rather than war is the hardest challenge. Totally excluding Hamas could ignite the streets; giving it a monopoly reproduces the status quo. The realistic answer is a transitional hybrid, with strong international oversight of security, services, and non-proliferation.

What “Beginning of Peace” Really Means

It is not the peace of historic treaties, but the beginning of the possibility of peace: a cease-fire armed with guarantees, a humanitarian swap as political leverage, a multilateral photo that tells the world “we put our faces to it.” It is fragile, certainly. But it is more than an “operational pause.” It is a change of paradigm: from military victory to institutional victory. For Israel, it means closing the hostage chapter and demanding security that costs fewer lives and less reputational damage. For the Palestinians, it means stepping out of the cave of war toward bread, light, and work—if and only if those who control the territory stop killing their own civilians and accept rules. For the region, it means reopening channels (expanded Abraham Accords, the Iran dossier) that are worth energy, investment, and corridors.

Europe: The Weight of Absence, Italy’s Opportunity

Let’s not beat around the bush: the EU did not lead. It spoke, it participated, but it did not set the course. On border dossiers—Mediterranean, migration, energy—those who sit in the front row go on to write the rules. Here Italy, with Meloni, occupied space: the only woman on stage, the only European figure as visible as the major regional sponsors. Is this leadership? It is the beginning of leadership: to make it real, Rome will have to deliver projects and institutions (field hospitals, energy bridges, schools, training of civil police).

A coherent conservative line puts order before the expansion of rights (because without order, rights remain on paper), secure borders before rhetoric, and aid conditioned on verifiable behavior. This is precisely the framework in which Italy can specialize: the Mediterranean, humanitarian security, controlled reconstruction. If Brussels is absent, Rome can gain room to maneuver.

Responsibility, Not Illusions

True peace does not spring from punchy phrases but from institutions that work. Today there is a beginning: hostages home, prisoners freed, a multilateral framework, a blunt speech in Jerusalem, and a signature in Egypt. There is also a dark side: intra-Palestinian violence, the temptation to muddle through, and rhetoric that hides the need for hard rules.

Here Italy can—and must—play the game: Giorgia Meloni has taken a front-row seat; now it must be filled with substance. It is the best way not to leave the Mediterranean to those who use it as a pawn or a threat. If the truce holds, it will be because someone did the dirty work of peace: measuring, verifying, correcting. And doing it every day.