By J. André Faust | The Connected Mind | October 15, 2025
Update — CBC analysis (Oct 16, 2025)
CBC’s latest piece describes Trump’s Gaza deal as potentially “historic” yet cautions that it stops at a negative peace—a pause in violence—without a clear path to a negotiated, lasting settlement. Trump declined to commit to a two-state solution, and analysts note the plan largely reflects Israeli and U.S. priorities, with limited Palestinian voice. In short: headline peace, unresolved foundations.
Why it matters for this essay: this directly reinforces the theme of performative peace—high-visibility wins in Phase 1 with structural questions left open, increasing the risk of later fracture.
When Peace Becomes a Performance: Trump, Netanyahu, and the Architecture of Escape
The Gaza ceasefire agreement, publicly described as a step toward peace, contains within it a series of conditions that appear designed to collapse under their own weight. Among the most striking features are the impossible demands: the return of all hostages, living and dead; Hamas’s total disarmament; and an implicit assumption that a shattered territory can deliver complete compliance under bombardment. At the centre of this fragile structure stand two dominant figures — Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu — whose political and strategic interests have become increasingly intertwined. To analyse their alignment without slipping into speculation, this post focuses on strategy, evidence and verification.
1. Convergence of interests
Trump’s domestic narrative casts him as the deal-maker who achieves results where traditional diplomacy fails; Netanyahu’s depends on demonstrating that Israel remains strong, unbending, and protected by Washington’s approval (CNN, 2025). Both face internal pressures that reward toughness over compromise, which helps explain why their language and sequencing converge.
2. Narrative synchronisation as political instrument
Modern conflicts are fought with words as well as weapons. Press conferences, photo-ops and carefully sequenced “points of agreement” serve as instruments of narrative control. In this context, the widely discussed “twenty points” function both as negotiation terms and as a communication script (Reuters, 2025). Each clause reinforces a moral hierarchy — Israel as the disciplined actor, Hamas as the unreliable counterpart — a framing reinforced by disputes over recovered remains (Associated Press, 2025).
3. The optics of ownership: Trump’s first word
A revealing CBC segment documented a handwritten note passed to Trump during a domestic round-table: “Very close. We need you to approve a Truth Social post soon so you can announce the deal first” (CBC, 2025). Minutes later he signalled an imminent deal; within hours, his post appeared. Communication scholars call this narrative capture — controlling the headline rather than the outcome (Entman, 1993). The footage shows media choreography in action: the announcement itself is part of the performance.
4. The propaganda parallel
Describing this as “propaganda-like” need not imply deceit. In communication theory, propaganda is deliberate perception-shaping to achieve behavioural outcomes (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2019). One-sided or impossible conditions become rhetorical proof of restraint on one side and intransigence on the other; synchronised statements and timing create an echo chamber that amplifies the stronger party’s moral logic (Herman & Chomsky, 1988).
5. Avoiding the conspiratorial trap
Strategic analysis examines observable incentives and outcomes; conspiracy claims allege secret coordination beyond evidence. Messaging alignment between Washington and Jerusalem is verifiable — statements often mirror each other within hours, and close communication is acknowledged (The Guardian, 2025). What would cross the line is asserting a total hidden script without documentation.
6. Self-defeating design: why the agreement may collapse
Five dynamics make the framework structurally unstable: (1) Impossibility clauses such as the demand to return all bodies (Reuters, 2025); (2) Asymmetrical enforcement where one side can unilaterally decide compliance (ABC News, 2025); (3) Domestic incentives for toughness that discourage compromise (The Guardian, 2025); (4) a verification vacuum; and (5) a humanitarian feedback loop in which devastation itself becomes grounds for future non-compliance claims.
7. Interpreting behaviour, not allegiance
Treating each leader as a rational actor clarifies how the theatre of negotiation serves domestic objectives that may diverge from peacebuilding. This is not vilification; it is a study of how states convert negotiation into narrative.
8. Phase 1 and the architecture of escape
Phase 1 was designed as a self-contained, visible success: hostage releases, a short ceasefire and limited troop repositioning that can be credited quickly to presidential authority (CNN, 2025). By front-loading optics, a narrative victory is secured regardless of later collapse. In game-theory terms, the structure is non-zero but asymmetrical: Trump maximises gain in every outcome, while Israel and Hamas absorb risk. The agreement’s structure and its communication loop are entangled — each action is both procedure and performance. This is systemic entanglement: governance mechanisms blending with perception mechanisms to create a recursive information loop.
Conclusion: the peace that performs itself
The ceasefire’s logic is self-contradictory: it demands total compliance from a devastated region while granting wide discretion to its guarantors. The very qualities that make it politically valuable — moral clarity, unilateral control and domestic resonance — make it operationally fragile. Whether the Trump–Netanyahu alignment is deliberate or emergent matters less than the outcome: a system that performs the ritual of peace while perpetuating structures of conflict.
About the author
J. André Faust examines the structural entanglements of politics, economics and society. He explores how single moments, from a lone act of violence to a policy choice, can unfold into decades of social and cultural change.
His approach treats reality like a layered 3D model. Systems overlap, interact and sometimes obscure one another. Forecasts are provisional; hidden layers and feedback loops are often still at work.
Guiding idea: understand connections, trace feedback and revise beliefs as new layers come into view.
References
- ABC News. (2025, October 15). Israel says ceasefire deal contingent on full return of hostages.
- Associated Press. (2025, October 14). Israeli military says one of the bodies handed over by Hamas is not that of a hostage.
- CBC News [Chang, A.]. (2025, October 12). How Trump’s ‘first word’ defined the Middle East peace announcement.
- CNN [Tapper, J.]. (2025, October 15). Trump tells CNN that Israeli forces could resume fighting in Gaza if Hamas doesn’t uphold ceasefire deal.
- Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
- Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon Books.
- Jowett, G. S., & O’Donnell, V. (2019). Propaganda & Persuasion (7th ed.). Sage Publications.
- Reuters. (2025, October 14). Returning hostage bodies from Gaza may take time, Red Cross says.
- The Guardian. (2025, October 15). Trump and Netanyahu’s alignment strengthens as Gaza deal faces hurdles.
