TEHRAN- In his exclusive interview with Tehran Times, Egyptian political analyst and professor of political sociology Mohamed Sayed Ahmed offers a sharp evaluation of the Gaza ceasefire after nearly two years of devastating war.

Professor Sayed Ahmed argues that the agreement, though essential, serves as a temporary breather rather than a resolution of the deeper conflict. Ahmed says while the truce halts Israel’s military operations and allows for humanitarian relief and reconstruction, it falls short of addressing the core issues: occupation, displacement, and the Palestinian right to statehood.

He also critiques the controversial Trump 20-point plan and rejects proposals for Western-led administration of Gaza, emphasizing that Palestinians must retain control. Cairo, he contends, has played a decisive role. Above all, in the interview he predicts the struggle continues. He also argues this is a war for existence, not merely for territory.

Below is the full text of the interview:

How do you assess the significance of the Gaza ceasefire agreement after nearly two years of devastating war?

I think it is very important because it is the longest war that the Zionist enemy has fought against the Palestinian people. For two whole years there was siege, destruction and an attempt at true extermination of the Palestinian people. So, it was crucial to halt the fighting and accept this agreement so that the Palestinian people—and the Palestinian resistance (forces) —could breathe.

The Palestinian project has survived and the resistance remains alive.

We know very well that the war is not over; the conflict with this enemy is about existence, not borders. The ceasefire does not mean the end of the conflict, but rather a pause in it, and therefore it was very important at this time. I believe that the Palestinian people, together with the resistance, have defeated the Zionist enemy to some extent.

Their declared goals were not achieved: the people were not displaced and the resistance was not eliminated. That in itself is a victory for the resistance and for the Palestinian people over the Zionist enemy.

 What are the main factors that pushed both sides — Israel and Hamas — to accept this agreement at this particular moment?

The Zionist enemy agreed to this deal because the war became untenable and there were pressures both internationally and domestically. The situation inside Israel deteriorated markedly. Settlers lived for two years in a state of constant terror and threat, and the morale of the occupation army reached its lowest level.

Settlers turned on Benjamin Netanyahu and his government, confirming that they could not achieve victory, so the war had to be stopped. These internal pressures, along with heavy economic, social, military and political losses, pushed Israel to stop the war.

International public opinion also took a toll—not just Western governments but public sentiment. Sympathy for the Palestinian people grew, and awareness about the Palestinian cause spread.

Israel forced to halt the war under internal and international pressure.The narrative that Palestinians are terrorists collapsed; instead, Palestinians were seen as defending their homeland and asserting their right to liberate occupied land. Conversely, Zionist narratives were weakened.

As for Hamas, it too faced enormous pressure and severe losses—on the ground and in leadership, political and military.

The Palestinian people in Gaza suffered massively: tens of thousands killed, hundreds of thousands wounded, starvation, a brutal siege, and roughly 80 percent of buildings destroyed. All these factors pressured Hamas to accept the agreement at this stage.

How do you evaluate the so-called Trump 20-point plan, which has sparked wide debate in political circles?

My assessment is that Trump’s plan is a Zionist plan. It is not in the interest of the Palestinian people or the Palestinian resistance. Many of its provisions aimed at dismantling resistance capabilities and establishing international or externally led administration—under figures such as Trump himself and Tony Blair—are not favorable to Palestinians.

Hamas’s response was smart in avoiding the demolition of resistance weapons. That response preserved Hamas as a partner on the Gaza scene. I believe Trump’s objectives were not fully achieved because Hamas refused to accept the dismantling of weapons or an externally managed sector.

This leaves room to breathe and to reorganize, and it confirms that Hamas will not accept removal of its arms or management of Gaza away from Palestinians themselves.

The narrative that Palestinians are terrorists collapsed; instead, Palestinians were seen as defending their homeland and asserting their right to liberate occupied land.

Some argue that this plan seeks to redefine the Palestinian issue without addressing the roots of occupation or the right to an independent Palestinian state.  Do you agree with this view?

I agree. This plan does not address the issue at its roots and does not grant the Palestinian people the right to establish a state. It is mainly a stopgap to halt the bleeding and allow breathing room. The conflict with this Zionist enemy will continue, albeit in different phases.

We must use this time to rebuild Gaza, stabilize its people, reorganize the resistance and the Palestinian factions, and seek unity. The resistance remains the only solution to confront this enemy, because this is a battle for existence, not borders.

The enemy still proclaims expansionist slogans—from the Nile to the Euphrates—and seeks to displace not only Palestinians but broader Arab populations.

They view this as a holy mission, so they will not willingly allow a Palestinian state, despite international law and the fact that 157 countries (out of the 193 member states of the United Nations) support Palestinian statehood.

The 1947 UN partition decision has not produced an Arab Palestinian state after almost eight decades; liberation, sadly, will not occur except through arms. The resistance must reorganize and prepare for a new round of struggle once it regains strength.

The plan reportedly assigns Tony Blair to oversee the postwar administration in Gaza. How is this proposal perceived in Egypt and the wider Arab world?

Tony Blair’s proposed role in administering Gaza is rejected by Egypt and the Arab world entirely. Egypt played a major role in shaping Hamas’s response and helped to reject this idea.

The fate of Gaza, Egypt insists, must be decided by Palestinians themselves, including all Palestinian factions. Hamas has clearly rejected external administration, and thus the suggestion is effectively nullified once the first parts of the agreement were implemented. Donald Trump accepted Hamas’s response, which decisively rejected external administration of the Strip.

The Palestinian people, together with the resistance, have defeated the Zionist enemy.

Do you believe Western supervision could weaken the Arab role or undermine regional sovereignty in managing the Gaza file?

I do not think Western supervision would strengthen the Arab role; rather, it would undermine it. Gaza is central to the Palestinian cause. If Hamas had agreed to Western administration and to removing its weapons, the Palestinian cause would have been effectively sidelined.

The primary goals of the Gaza war—displacement of Palestinians, settlement on Egyptian soil in Sinai, and elimination of Hamas—were not achieved. Consequently, the Palestinian project has survived and the resistance remains alive. The struggle can continue toward full liberation of occupied Palestinian lands.

Egypt has long served as a mediator between Israel and the Palestinian factions. How do you evaluate Cairo’s role in achieving the recent ceasefire agreement?

Cairo’s role was central—far beyond that of a mere mediator. To call Egypt a mediator understates its contribution. Egypt did not relent; it remained active and instrumental in achieving the agreement.

At the outset of the war, when Benjamin Netanyahu spoke of temporarily displacing Palestinians and settling them in Sinai, that was effectively a declaration of war against Egypt.

Egypt rejected that plan and mobilized its forces in Sinai, prepared to confront any threat. Israel understood Egypt’s strength and the potential for a wider confrontation, and that deterred further escalation. Egypt has stood by the Palestinian people and will not allow its soil to be violated; it has been a firm partner to Gaza in confronting this Zionist enemy.

Do you think this agreement could pave the way for a lasting political settlement, or is it merely a temporary truce before another round of escalation?

I believe this agreement is unlikely to produce a permanent political settlement. A lasting two-state solution cannot be accepted by the Zionist enemy, in my view. What we have is a temporary solution before a possible new round of escalation.

The Palestinian resistance insists on liberation of the entire occupied Palestinian land; our conflict with this enemy is about existence, not borders. Therefore, I see the current agreement as a pause rather than a final settlement.