An Astonishing Moment in Diplomacy

Dear Clarity Reader,

Normally I share written analysis with you here on Clarity. But with the latest developments around the peace deal—and after a comprehensive conversation I recently had on MSNBC’s Morning Joe—I thought it would be valuable to share the interview directly with you.

You can watch the full video or, if you prefer, read the full transcript below.

---

---

MSNBC Morning Joe (October 9, 2025)

Mika Brzezinski: Joining us now, former Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren. Mr. Ambassador, is there any more you can share with us about this peace deal and any concerns you have?

Michael Oren: Good morning, Mika. Hi, Joe. Good to be with you, as always. I’ve been listening to a very distinguished panel—very impressive—but I think everyone’s missing the point, and it’s this: everyone’s talking about the pressure put by Trump on Netanyahu, or the pressure on Trump regarding Netanyahu, but that misses the point.

The 20-point plan developed by Steve Witkoff with Jared Kushner is one of the most elegant pieces of diplomacy we’ve seen in recent years. It’s overwhelmingly pro-Israel. It addresses all of Israel’s war aims and only has one timetable—seventy-two hours to release all the hostages. Other than that, it demilitarizes Gaza, takes the guns away from Hamas, exiles Hamas leaders, and opens the way to a better future.

What does Israel have to give in return? Withdrawal, clearly, and also the release of some security prisoners from our prisons, which is painful. The other concessions are some talk about a potential future pathway to a Palestinian state—and “pathway” is a very obscure term. It could mean many things. There’s also mention of a possible role for a reformed Palestinian Authority in governing Gaza in the future.

The major pressure here wasn’t on Israel—it was pushing at an open door. The major pressure is on Hamas. Leaders in the Middle East have had it with Hamas. Hamas brought war, instability, and destruction to the region. What begins with Israel and Palestine never ends there; it spreads to riots in the streets of Riyadh and Cairo. They were fed up and wanted it over.

That’s the extraordinary achievement here—bringing together all these disparate stakeholders, who don’t agree with each other or with Israel, to end the war by putting pressure on Hamas.

That’s a tremendous difference from anything that happened during the Biden administration. And it’s all predicated on America’s willingness to use force in the Middle East. You don’t bring peace without power, and President Trump demonstrated—again and again—that he was willing to use power, first with the Houthis and then with Iran. That gives you a lot of credibility in the Middle East.

Joe Scarborough: Mr. Ambassador, first of all, thank you for taking time to correct David Ignatius and the rest of us. It reminds me of the line in Broadcast News, where the anchor is told, “It must be wonderful to be right all the time when everyone else is wrong,” and Holly Hunter breaks down crying and says, “No, it’s terrible.” That’s the burden you carry.

I want to talk about something David Ignatius said a few days ago—that this 20-point plan, in effect, amounts to a surrender by Hamas. So you know, we’ll give you a point there. You talk about an elegant solution here, and I want to walk through that.

Jared Kushner writes along with Steve Witkoff this 20-point plan, which of course came because the Qataris were talking to us, and they were trying to figure out how we negotiate a way to peace. It was Kushner who decided, we’re not going to negotiate our way to peace.

We’re going to do a 20-point plan. You are going to present this to Hamas, we’re going to present it to Israel, and we’re going to get it done. It was fascinating at that point that they understood negotiations would be protracted. This was in effect a 20-point plan, which for Hamas amounted to a surrender document.

Michael Oren: That’s exactly my point. It’s a very—I don’t want to say it’s a pro-Israel document—but it does address all of Israel’s war aims. It’s going to be supported even within the Israeli government and they are going to approve it today.

Joe Scarborough: Mr. Ambassador, not to interrupt you, but not only does it support Israel’s war aims, it also supports the reality on the ground. Hamas is battered and bruised. It is a spent force, and most importantly, it’s isolated even throughout the Middle East with its Arab neighbors.

Michael Oren: And why is that, Joe? Because Israel used force and because Israel put force backed by the United States. It’s unpleasant. War is horrible. I’ve been in several, and I’ll tell you, without the use of force, this 20-point deal would not have been possible. And through this use of force, not just against Hamas, but also against Iran. President Trump was willing to step up and project American power.

What’s missing from the conversation this morning is the revival of the pax Americana, after years of withdrawal and isolationism in the Middle East. That may be the most historic consequence of these 20 points of this agreement.

Now, having said all that, this is maybe the end of the beginning. Hamas still has its guns. Hamas is still embedded in Gaza. The Houthis are still firing rockets. Iran is now rebuilding. The war may be far from over, but the fact is that these hostages are returning, and that was Israel’s major war aim. It is an extraordinary achievement for which the people of Israel are deeply indebted to Donald Trump.

Jonathan Lemire: David, certainly that goal of the hostages being returned seems to be—fingers crossed—achieved next few days. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the terrible toll: civilians in Gaza, women, children, and of course, so many hostages who didn’t make it out.

Certainly the region has changed dramatically since October 7th two years ago. Give us your assessment of the state of play here in the Middle East, and do you believe that the best way for real peace would be the two states solution? Is this 20-point plan a step along that journey?

David Ignatius: It’s a beginning. If we’re honest, we have to admit that a Palestinian state is still far in the distance. But it is a beginning. I think the contribution that the Trump team has made here—Ambassador Oren is thinking and pushing on the day after what kind of transitional arrangement would be made in Gaza to move beyond situation of what seemed to be war that couldn’t be ended. It just went on and on. And as you know better than I, many Israelis, even a year ago, felt that the military objectives had been achieved. The question I want to put to you is the one that I find I worry about most, and that’s the disarmament of Hamas. A key part of President Trump’s 20-point plan, essential to Israel, is that Hamas will no longer have military or political power. Do you think in the coming weeks and months Hamas actually will disarm? And if not, is Israel going to have to go back to war?

Michael Oren: That’s a great question. It’s the key question, David. Giving up arms, surrendering, goes against the DNA of Hamas. It is what they’re about. It’s basically asking them to negate their own identity. It’s a difficult time, and they won’t do it peacefully. They won’t go peacefully into that dark night, certainly.

Now Hamas is trying to parse it. They’ll say, listen, we’ll give up our guns, but we want to keep our defensive weapons. Or we’ll give up our rockets, but we want to keep our Kalashnikovs. The Trump administration is going to have to step in very strongly again—not with the Israelis—but with the Qataris and the Turks who are very close to Hamas and say, “no, this can’t be.”

Everyone’s talking about an international force, which is supposed to go into Gaza, which is another part of the 20 points. But that force is not going to go into Gaza if Hamas still has its guns.

That is really the linchpin of what happens next; can Hamas be effectively disarmed? You had mentioned it, David, that there would be an amnesty for the Hamas people who give up terror. There’s some kind of pledge they’re supposed to make. I don’t know what the wording that that pledge means or how it would read, but that is the key to everything that comes next.

Elisabeth Bumiller: The goal of Israel was always the total elimination and destruction of Hamas. That clearly is not about to happen. So, my next question is where does Hamas go after this? Are they just going to go peacefully into the night and that’s the end of it? Because of the devastation in Gaza and so many civilians killed—how can they just walk away from this?

Michael Oren: I don’t think they’re going to have a choice. What they want to do, Elisabeth, is have a Hezbollah-like situation; they want to have their guns, but not retain any of the sovereign responsibilities. They don’t want to come out of the tunnels and be responsible for rebuilding Gaza. Denying them that option will be a major objective of American diplomacy in the days to come. It won’t be easy.

Hamas can say, okay, we’re going to be part of a technocratic government in Gaza. We’re going to give up our guns. I still think that goes against their DNA. They will not go quietly into the night.

I have suggested in the past that we revisit what President Reagan did in the early eighties when Israel laid siege to Beirut. We let the PLO leader, Yasser Arafat, and his major armed force get on ships and go off to Tunis. Hamas leaders can get on a ship and go to Algeria or Turkey or elsewhere, and leave the majority of their rank and file behind. And perhaps they can have some role in the future of governance of Gaza, but not as an armed force. And that’s going to be key.

The rebuilding of Gaza is a tremendous opportunity for the people of Gaza and for the region. Gaza can be and has been, by the way, in previous centuries, a tremendously successful, influential and lucrative port. It’s literally the link between continents and the future there can be very, very promising, indeed.

Jon Meacham: Mr. Ambassador, I’m a great admirer of your book, “Power, Faith, and Fantasy” about the relationship between America and the Middle East. If you were adding a chapter at this hour, how proportionate is this moment for America’s role in what’s unfolding right now?

Michael Oren: Thank you, Jon, for mentioning my book. I’m a great fan of all your books. My book, of course, is available at famously reduced prices now. It's a very large book from 2006 called “Power, Faith and Fantasy.” It basically says that American involvement in the Middle East since 1776 has followed three patterns. It’s power—usually military power, but also economic power. Faith—democratic faith, but also Christian faith. And fantasy—the fantasy that someday the Middle East will look like the United States.

What I would have to rewrite in recent years is that the power factor had disappeared. You had administrations like the Biden administration, like the Obama administration, that were unwilling to exert power in the Middle East for all sorts of reasons. And by the way, it wasn’t just the Democratic party. The Republican party at times was vying with the Democrats as to which could be more isolationist in the world.

What I mentioned earlier is that now the United States is back exerting power in the Middle East. The B-2 bombers bombing Fordow. The American Naval forces taking out missiles that are aimed at Israel or taking out the Houthis. That power has given this administration leverage that previous administrations didn’t have.

President Biden, for all his good intentions said, “don’t". everyone remembers President Biden saying “don’t.” And everybody did. Israel did. The Palestinians did. The Iranians did. Everyone realized that the United States was not willing to flex muscle. In the Middle East you flex muscle and you get leverage in peace negotiations. And that’s what we’re seeing right now.

Jon Meacham: You brought up the Biden administration who worked on this day in and day out for quite some time. You talked about the Obama administration, of course. Remember Bush 43 and that administration early on saying we’re not going to try to drag the Israelis and the Palestinians to the peace table. If they don’t want peace, we’re not going to waste our time with it.

So, you are right, both parties, Mr. Ambassador, saying “enough.” But things have changed. I’m a big believer in experience. It matters a great deal. Talk about Jared Kushner’s experience with the Abraham Accords and how that laid the pathway. Talk about how in this case of Donald Trump telling somebody, go get this done, in fact, don’t come back until it’s done. Talk about how the Abraham Accords laid the pathway to this morning where there is hope that the hostages will be freed.

Michael Oren: Go back to this theory of peace through strength. George Bush Senior goes to war in the Middle East, and he has the Madrid Peace Conference. George Bush Junior goes to war in the Middle East, and he has the Annapolis Peace Conference. These are bringing many different countries together to talk about peace because America was willing to use force.

Again, the Abraham Accords were forged because there was a president who made the impression that America was willing to exert power. The countries that signed the Abraham Accords signed them not because of the state of Israel. Their leaders don’t get up in the morning and sing the Hatikva, our national anthem. They stood up because Israel was fighting the two major foes of all of these countries, which was Islamic extremism from the Sunni camp and Islamic extremism from the Shia camp—Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. The United States was backing that.

In addition to exerting power in the Middle East, it’s personal relations. And David, you know, that 90% of the diplomacy, like almost everything else in life, is personal relations. And Jared Kushner succeeded in establishing personal relations with every single leader in the region. He was able to capitalize on that and to harness those personal relationships in bringing together these 20 points, which frankly astonished me.

I can’t think of any other document in recent history where so many disparate interests in the middle were brought together around a very complicated issue in putting together a blueprint, which everybody agrees on. Even the Israeli right, for the most part, agreed with it. And that is an extraordinary accomplishment. Jon, someday you and I are going to be writing about this.