The missing ingredients for peace in Palestine

The Donald Trump ceasefire could be the first step towards peace, but only if it evolves into a full-fledged plan that recognises and appreciates the decades-long Palestinian struggle.

Following two years of mass killings by Israel in one of the most ruthless military campaigns in recent history, the Gaza ceasefire agreed in October was an undoubtedly welcome step.

But even if it holds, the root causes of the problem need to be addressed in order to achieve a just and lasting peace. Otherwise, renewed bloodshed and suffering in the region are inevitable.

Notably, the current ceasefire is US president Donald Trump’s personal project, rather than the continuation of decades of international efforts to solve the Israel-Palestine problem. It does not contain the necessary references to United Nations Security Council Resolutions that refer to a two-state solution with pre-1967 borders and East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian State.

Presenting the current peace deal as a “new beginning” thus risks creating the illusion of a solution. While a new UN Security Council Resolution (2803) has legitimised the Trump plan, its references to rightful Palestinian expectations remain insufficient (unlike in the Russian draft).

An especially urgent danger is the normalisation of illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. According to a recent International Crisis Group report, Israeli outposts are growing more numerous and are being transformed into permanent settlements.

Similarly, the introduction of a “yellow line” in Gaza raises the likelihood of partition, with Israel permanently occupying more than half of the enclave. There are too many reasons to be suspicious of Israel’s intent to withdraw from these territories.

Let us not be naive: the ceasefire is just a beginning. As UN secretary-general António Guterres has stated, the events in Palestine cannot be seen in a vacuum, independent from their past and current context. Many European countries finally took the step of recognising the State of Palestine, mainly owing to increasing domestic pressure.

Although this may be a superficial step, it signals an important shift in the global approach to the Palestinian cause. Israel remains isolated due to its extremist policies, while international sentiment for a just solution is more vocal than ever.

The platform for peace brought by the Trump plan is new, but the problem at hand, and its main answers, have long been clear. The Israeli invasion and illegal settlements must end, and Palestinian statehood must be achieved with due dignity.

For the ceasefire to lead to a permanent peace, the US must take charge of swaying Israel in the right direction. Solving the main conflict of the Middle East would be an immense service to humanity. The US would boost its own prestige, while ensuring the safety and prosperity of its closest ally in the region.

Israel’s existential worries are also understandable: it is situated in the middle of the Levant, among many hostile countries. But it should recognise what most Jewish intellectuals and elites around the world understood a long time ago: Israel needs normal relations with Palestinians and its other neighbours. If the alternative is to enforce an apartheid state or strip away Palestinian sovereignty, the conflict will only be postponed and amplified, as has been true in the past.

As long as the invasion continues, resistance will also continue. Merely destroying Hamas will not guarantee Israel’s security, because, in the absence of a just peace, some similarly minded group will inevitably take its place. The only solution is to address the cause of Palestinian radicalisation, which starts with allowing Palestinians to live in dignity on their own land.

Peace in Palestine would have effects well beyond the immediate region. Most of the radicalism in the Islamic world exploits claims related to the Palestinian cause. If the conflict is solved, such claims will surely lose traction.

At the same time, Palestinians need to put their own house in order, by elevating leaders who are fully committed to democracy and the rule of law. Only this kind of leadership can truly represent the Palestinian people as a legitimate international interlocutor. This has become even more important since Oct 7, 2023. The Palestinian leadership must be credible, legitimate, and respectable.

Given the destruction and hardship faced by Palestinians at every level, such political objectives will not be easy to achieve. The international community must be supportive and understanding of the initial efforts to create an acceptable leadership. Israel, too, must support such efforts if it wants to weaken the role of Hamas and achieve regional normalisation once and for all.

In 2006, as Turkey’s minister of foreign affairs, I was the first one to receive and meet with Hamas in Ankara following their election victory. I strongly advised them to embrace new policies and act in the way that a democratically elected political force should: they needed to follow diplomacy, adopt more moderate tactics in their struggle, and become the internationally recognised representatives of Palestinians.

They showed initial signs that they were willing to do so. I also told my Israeli and American counterparts that the newly elected Palestinian leadership in Gaza should be given a chance. Instead, it was immediately shunned and sanctioned.

Today, a similar opportunity presents itself. I remain convinced that only a democratic Palestinian leadership that ensures good governance, rids itself of corruption, and rejects violence can receive full support from its people and become their legitimate international representative.

I have spoken to prominent figures across the Middle East, and many have identified the imprisoned Palestinian politician Marwan Barghouti as an example of a promising leadership candidate. But Israel must demonstrate that it truly desires peace by freeing him and other political prisoners.

The world has grown tired of helplessly watching violence and suffering in Palestine. The Trump ceasefire could be the first step towards peace, but only if it evolves into a full-fledged plan that recognises and appreciates the decades-long Palestinian struggle. Otherwise, the suffering of Palestinians and the insecurity of Israelis will continue. - FMT

Abdullah Gül is a former president of the Republic of Turkey.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

How to spend your golden years – do good

I don’t want my old age to be spent trying to repair what I may have done wrong. I want to do whatever I can to put it right while I still can. And if I can’t, I’ll try to do something else to make up for it.

It was good to meet up with some old friends recently, people who were with me in secondary school, half a century ago. But not everybody was there.

Quite a large percentage of our year had passed away. Some aren’t well, while others, whether by choice or not, have gone quiet.

Most of us are Merdeka boys, born in the year of independence. While the country is quite young, as countries go, and is vigorous and vital, humans of the same vintage don’t quite age so elegantly.

Most of us are retired, or in our second or third career. I’d imagine some are quite comfortable with life after retirement, some others probably less so. That’s how life goes.

When you’re of a certain age, your thoughts, even unconsciously, tend to focus on a few big questions: one is how have I lived my life so far; and the other is what’s next?

None of us know what’s coming next, though we do hope and pray that our existence has been of some worth and meaning, and that the remaining years will be kind.

If the life I had lived was put up for judgment, would the judgement be kind, or would it have been harsh?

Seeking salvation

I had very religious parents, both pious but also easy-going in so many ways. They cared immensely about fulfilling the tenets of their faith, but were not very judgmental on others around them.

In their old age, they were totally unafraid about having their life come to an end and going on to meet their Maker. That’s a sign of strong, iron-clad faith.

They did spend more time on their faith and rituals in their later years, but not overwhelmingly so. They didn’t seem too exercised about pushing for a few final rounds of merit-making before their time was up.

In my own senior years, especially after I retired, I, too, have pondered how to spend the remainder of my days. It’s an interesting philosophical exercise, and not one that’s morbid or ghoulish at all.

If I compare myself with many of my peers, I’d have to say I’m not as pious as they are. Many of them are laser-focused on earning merit for their salvation in the hereafter.

If that’s what makes them happy, then good for them indeed. I don’t know all their life stories. I wish them all the best, and may they find their peace and salvation.

Setting things right

For me, I don’t want my old age to be spent trying to repair what I may have done wrong. I’m pretty sure I got most things right, and where I didn’t, they’re probably not fatal to my case, if you’ll pardon the pun.

If I did do something wrong, I want to do whatever I can to put it right while I still can. And if I can’t, I’ll try to do something else to make up for it.

I don’t believe it’s as easy as to just repent and ask for God’s forgiveness and then have the slate wiped clean. Or do a pilgrimage and offer special prayers. Or make some donations to the needy or their causes.

If the action for which you’re asking forgiveness has hurt some people, the first order of business is to right the wrong. If you can’t, then make sure you make up for it in some other ways.

If you’re a Muslim, should you go to Mecca for pilgrimage 10 times to make up for it, or should you go once, and pay for nine other poor people to go instead? Should you build an expensive private chapel in your home, or build 10 decent ones in the poor areas? Should you pay for expensive prayers and offerings to smoothen your journey to the afterlife or help those facing problems in the here and now?

If these suggestions sound like a bit of socialism, so be it. In my mind all religions without exception insist on justice and fairness especially for the poor and the weak and the powerless, which is what socialism aims for too.

Apart from faith and worship of the Creator or Creators, religions are literally manifestations of our duty and responsibilities towards helping others in our circles. That’s about as close to socialism as you can get.

In the balance

For me, my old age is a time to do things I couldn’t do, or didn’t do enough, in earlier years because of the usual life’s pressures, such as pursuing a livelihood and career and parenthood.

That includes being even more clear about what it means to be a good person, including about how much effort I should put in for the benefit of myself versus the benefit of others.

My kids are all grown up and facing their own life challenges, which I must admit seem to be heavier and tougher than when I was their age.

In my time it was a given that, bad luck aside, we’d all be able to live better lives than that of our parents. That’s not a given any more. But I think the kids are, as the song says, all right.

Even so, they have their own existential crisis to deal with. While they had an easier growing up than many of their parents, they would also face a tougher adulthood.

Facing the future

If life has been kind to you, I think it’s important that you spend your later years doing things you always wanted to do, but couldn’t. I hope that doesn’t include gathering even more wealth to be at your richest when you die.

I hope, when the tough periods do come, you won’t be a burden on those you love. I hope you have focused on your health as much as your wealth. And I hope your gene lottery has been kind to you, though that’s difficult to arrange, because the gene lottery is literally a lottery!

Meanwhile, don’t think so much about dying that you forget about living. Earth and everything in it is incredibly wonderful, but also precious and fragile. See as much of it as you can.

Do as much as you can to make things better, if not for yourself then at least for those who come after you. Have fun, make new friends, help others within your means. And don’t forget those school reunions. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

Sabah election verdict promotes federalism, not rebellion

Hajiji Noor and GRS’s win is a call for Malaysia to be built on respect, partnership, and in the spirit of MA63.

Sabah has delivered the first major political lesson of 2025.

In spite of the skepticism of analysts and distant commentators, Sabahans overwhelmingly re-elected Hajiji Noor and Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) with confidence and clarity.

This was not a hesitant verdict or a reluctant compromise. It was a bold insistence that Sabah deserves a leadership rooted in its own soil — a leadership that understands the rhythms of local life while working constructively with Putrajaya.

The results make one simple truth clear: Sabah is not rejecting Malaysia. Sabah is reinforcing how Malaysia should work.

Hajiji’s swift and undisputed return as chief minister signalled a preference for continuity, delivery, and dignity.

Sabahans do not want political theatrics imported from the peninsula. They want development: better water systems, reliable roads, economic uplift, and the fulfilment of Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).

GRS, in the eyes of Sabah voters, has shown a practical pathway to those goals — not through confrontation with the federal government, but through a partnership grounded in mutual respect.

At the same time, the strong performance of Warisan reflects Sabah’s political maturity. Voters have no interest in giving any single party a blank cheque. A credible opposition ensures accountability, forces the government to remain responsive, and keeps democratic equilibrium intact. Sabahans did not vote for dominance; they voted for balanced governance.

However, the total defeat of DAP in all eight seats it contested was impossible to ignore. It was not a repudiation of multicultural ideals, because Sabahans live those ideals every day without fanfare or fear.

The issue was misreading the electorate. DAP struggled to recognise that Sabahan political consciousness has evolved into something far more advanced than Peninsular narratives that often pivot on ethnic anxieties. Sabah wants federalism — but one implemented fairly, not merely spoken about.

Similarly, PKR’s result — winning only one of the many seats contested — sends an unmistakable message against transactional politics. Sabahans reject campaigns that appear designed solely for election season, without deeper community roots or lasting presence.

They want leaders who walk the ground year-round, not just during campaign windows. Long-term engagement, authentic representation, and context-grounded policymaking matter more than partisan branding or federal prestige.

These results should not be interpreted as a personal setback for Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. Sabahans are not questioning his legitimacy as the head of government.

What they are questioning is any attempt — by any party — to overlook the core constitutional reality: Sabah is a co-equal partner in Malaysia’s founding compact. A strong Malaysian federation does not originate from Kuala Lumpur alone. It must be anchored on the rights, voices, and development of every state.

Sarawak’s trajectory reinforces this shifting federal balance. Under Premier Abang Johari Openg, Sarawak has demonstrated rising confidence in asserting its rights over energy resources, education policies, and strategic priorities.

Together, the Borneo states are charting a new federalism that reminds Malaysia of MA63’s original meaning: shared sovereignty, shared prosperity, and shared respect.

And Malaysia should welcome this — not resist it. A federation becomes stronger when its outermost pillars stand firm, not when the centre shoulders all burden and authority. Empowering Sabah and Sarawak does not weaken national unity; it deepens it.

The significance of Sabah’s message extends beyond Malaysia’s borders. Across Asean, many member states struggle with distant provinces that feel ignored or misunderstood.

Indonesia grapples with trust issues in Aceh and Papua. The Philippines still works to stabilise Bangsamoro. Thailand faces long-standing grievances in its deep south. Myanmar collapsed into civil war because its ethnic states were denied dignity and recognition.

Sabah has just shown a different way forward.

Respecting peripheral strength reinforces central legitimacy.

A thriving Borneo is not a threat to Putrajaya — it is a stabiliser for Malaysia’s future. Similarly, Asean governments could learn that unity is not enforced; it is earned. It grows where representation is fair, identity is protected, and autonomy is respected.

Sabah’s election is a living reminder that dignity in diversity is not a risk — it is a resource. Political power must flow both ways. Only then will distant territories feel ownership of the nation’s destiny, and only then will the federation command loyalty without coercion.

The outcome in Sabah is not a warning. It is an invitation.

If Putrajaya wishes to strengthen Malaysia, it must fully honour MA63, end transactional politics, and elevate Borneo leadership into national decision-making — not as symbolic tokens, but as powerful partners.

If Asean wishes to build deeper regional stability, it must embrace governance that empowers rather than suppresses local identity.

Sabah has spoken, with maturity, clarity, and strategic foresight. Malaysia — and Asean — should listen, and respond in kind.

Indeed, having campaigned vigorously in Sabah, while still the Group Chair of Asean, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has, ironically, shown Asean how to learn from Sabah even if his own party did not do well.

The key is that Anwar embraced the results in Sabah. Indeed, he immediately endeavored to work with the GRS coalition — invariably, under the framework of a Pakatan friendly dynamic.

This is a policy amplified by Anwar’s willingness to respect Sabahans’ request for 40% of federal revenue earned in Sabah since 1963. The end of 2025 did not serve as a black eye for Anwar. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.