Islamic Peace Agreements—Do They Last?

In a diplomatic effort, U.S. President Donald Trump, in close partnership with Israel, has overseen an agreement with Hamas that will see the release of Israeli hostages and a formal ceasefire to end the Gaza war. This is the second major attempt to halt hostilities and free captives, following a previous agreement in November 2023 and mirroring the spirit of prior regional peace accords.

Key Points of the New Agreement:

1. Hamas will release Israeli hostages, civilians and military personnel while Israel will enact a phased withdrawal from Gaza and release a large number of Palestinian prisoners.
2. The agreement includes provisions for significant humanitarian aid and reconstruction in Gaza, contingent on ongoing compliance by all parties.

This is not the first time peace agreements in the region have been proclaimed. Notable examples include the Abraham Accords and the Oslo Accords. However, the region has a documented history of such agreements being broken:

1. The Abraham Accords have faced consistent challenges and criticism, particularly from parties who subsequently refrained from or undermined normalization efforts.
2. The Oslo Accords saw repeated violations, and the breakdown in mutual trust remains a core obstacle to lasting peace.

The Root Cause of Breaking Treaties with non-Muslims:

The Treaty of al-Hudaybiya (628 CE), an Islamic historical precedent embodied in the Sunna (Mohammed’s biography and deeds), shows that Mohammed annulled the same treaty with the Quraysh tribe when he determined the circumstances were more advantageous. This principle is clearly present in Islamic doctrine, allowing contractual agreements with non-Muslims to be broken. In 89 places in the Koran, Mohammed is proclaimed an eternal example for all humanity.

This precedent has influenced subsequent Islamic legal rulings on treaties and agreements. It is codified in the sharia as "hudna." Historical examples, such as the Treaty of al-Hudaybiya, are regularly cited in doctrinal literature as justification for breaking an agreement and/or oath.

As an example, Yasser Arafat’s speech on the Oslo Accords, delivered on May 10, 1994

"This agreement I am not considering it more than the agreement* which had been signed between our prophet Muhammad and Quraysh. And you remember, Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and considering the agreement of the very low class. But Muhammud had accepted it and we are accepting now this peace accord."

* Treaty of al-Hudaybiya

Lessons from Recent Experience:

1. The previous Gaza ceasefire agreements were undermined by persistent violations, including attacks by Hamas and its affiliates during periods of supposed truce.
2. Iran, a known state sponsor of Hamas, has a well-documented record of facilitating such breaches through funding, arms shipments, and operational direction for proxies.

Conclusion:

The current U.S. President Trump-brokered arrangement naturally raises hope for an end to hostilities and restoration of security for Israeli citizens. However, the historical and doctrinal record underscores the need for informed caution.

Any new agreement with Hamas must be assessed in light of the group’s charter, which explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel and the Jews, grounds its struggle in Islamic doctrine that legitimizes breaking treaties with non-Muslims for strategic gain, and perpetuates the idea of Jews as eternal enemies. The historical record—including repeated Hamas violations of past ceasefires and peace agreements, such as the Oslo Accords—confirms that Israel as well as the non-Islamic world should remain vigilant, as ideological commitments and precedent have consistently outweighed any formal accords. This caution should be exercised in dealings with all Islamic entities, since they share the same doctrine.