Hostage diplomacy has re-emerged in the political landscape of West Asia after the release of '20 Israeli hostages’ by Hamas and ‘1968 Palestinian prisoners’ by Israel. But can the trading of captives lead to lasting peace in West Asia in the absence of effective verification and monitoring of the conditions for peace?

The hostage politics is not new; Palestinians have employed it since the 1970s i.e. Entebbe (1976), where 106 hostages were held to demand the release of Palestinians in Israeli prisons; the Coastal Road massacre (1978), involving 71 hostages; the 1982 Lebanon War, where Palestinians held six Israeli soldiers to secure the release of 4500 Palestinian prisoners; the Jibril agreement (1985); and Gilad Shalit (2006), when a soldier was taken to negotiate the release of 1000 Palestinians. However, abduction and hostage-taking have become a new norm in international politics to compel the other side to negotiate.

The recent Gaza Ceasefire Agreement and Peace Summit hosted by Egypt with U.S. mediation overlooks the psychological baggage involved. It is crucial to remember that this deal has cost 67,600 Palestinian lives, and Gaza has been marred by famine, while Hamas is yet to return the bodies of 28 hostages.

Therefore, the key question is: how long will both sides remain committed to “peace”? In West Asia, individuals have historically driven movements and led organizations, while dissatisfied groups and individuals often acted independently due to psychological baggage and personal losses — examples include Yigal Amin killing Yitzhak Rabin, a Palestinian tailor (Mustafa Ashu) killing King Abdullah of Transjordan, and the Muslim Brotherhood's assassination of Anwar Sadat due to dissatisfaction over a visit to the Israeli Knesset.

The bigger issue facing West Asian geopolitics is whether this hostage diplomacy can lead to a long-lasting peace in the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict involving Hamas and the high politics of the Likud, and whether two viable states would be established with substantial mutual acceptance, or if the stalemate will persist, as the Palestinian faction has resorted to mechanisms that have not gained global support but are used to bring the case to international fora, i.e., October 7, etc.

Despite reaching peace with the prisoners and a hostage exchange, the hostage diplomacy has done little to address the deep systemic roots of the conflict. There are five strategic reasons why this diplomacy, while momentarily easing tensions, lacks the structural foundations necessary for a lasting resolution.

First, the US is ignoring the nuance of the whole issue, which is visible in the statement of President Trump, as he believes “generations from now, will remember this moment where everything began to change”, even though this diplomacy has led to tactical gains but not strategic and lacks broader political agreement to create a roadmap for resolving the Israeli-Palestine issue.

Second, the international community, including Emmanuel Macron (French President), Keir Starmer (Prime Minister of the UK), Friedrich Merz (German Chancellor), and General António Guterres (UN Secretary General), has welcomed the move but refrained from addressing the absence of post-swap diplomatic dialogue for the achievement of a two-state solution.

Third, the strategic question over Hamas lingers. If Israel is to resume talks, there are no conditions laid in the agreement on the status of Hamas as the legitimate authority, despite its acceptability within Gaza even after the 7 October attack. Meanwhile, the question of Hamas’s disarmament still loiters, and there are no details in the agreement of its surrender.

Fourth, the Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, and Jordan have favoured the hostage diplomacy while balancing the regional ties along with the Palestinian cause. The UAE had earlier normalized ties with Israel, and now the onus is on Saudi Arabia, as Trump's second task would be to reinstate the Jared Kushner plan (normalization of Arab ties with Israel) to create favourable conditions for a two-state solution and acceptance of Israel in the Arab world.

Fifth, to ensure the sustainability of the Gaza ceasefire plan and the conditions for establishing lasting peace in West Asia, the question of displaced families, infrastructure, and healthcare has to be addressed, as civilian casualties and emotional baggage may ignite calls for revenge rather than reconciliation for resolving the issue and achieving statehood.

The current Gaza ceasefire plan, with hostage diplomacy and captives exchange between Israel and Hamas, is likely to provide a temporary relief as it lacks a moral, political, and structural component to establish a lasting peace. Nevertheless, without a broader peace process, the plan is a symbolic gesture to resolve the cycle of ongoing violence.

Dr. Devender Kumar is Program Head and Assistant Professor at the School of Geopolitics and Public Policy, REVA University, Bengaluru.