Negotiations surrounding the fragile ceasefire in Gaza face significant challenges, raising concerns about its long-term viability. Thousands of Palestinians have shifted from southern Gaza to the north, hoping for a stable environment to return home. The ceasefire agreement includes provisions for the release of hostages and Palestinian prisoners, yet critical issues remain unresolved, such as the future governance of Gaza and a clear timetable for Israeli withdrawal.
Many past peace efforts in the Middle East have stumbled on complex details, often referred to as “final status” issues, including border demarcations and the status of East Jerusalem. In this instance, however, crucial elements have been deferred. The last ceasefire attempt between Israel and Hamas disintegrated in March, with crucial negotiations failing to materialize. Although the current agreement appears more comprehensive, it conflicts with Israel’s established “red-line” positions, leaving room for potential collapse.
Should initial hurdles be cleared, such as the return of all remaining hostages in Gaza in exchange for Palestinian prisoners in Israel, history suggests this may occur in stages, similar to previous ceasefires. The expectation is that Israel will withdraw its military presence from Gaza’s coastal areas within the first 72 hours, as per the agreement. Following this, a series of significant steps are outlined in Donald Trump’s 20-point plan.
One of the most contentious points is the disarmament of Hamas fighters, a process that remains deeply controversial. Hamas, designated as a terrorist organization by several countries, has indicated it would only disarm under specific conditions. Thus far, it has not committed to disarming completely, although there are suggestions it may consider relinquishing missiles if Israel provides assurances against resuming hostilities.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reinforced that Israeli forces will remain in Gaza to ensure pressure on Hamas until disarmament occurs. He stated, “If this can be achieved the easy way, very well. If not, it will be achieved the hard way.” This reflects a broader concern regarding Israel’s compliance with the proposed terms and the potential for military action to resume, echoing previous breaches of ceasefires, such as those seen in Lebanon.
Details surrounding Israel’s withdrawal are vague within the Trump plan, which states that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) will withdraw based on criteria linked to demilitarisation. However, these standards have not been disclosed publicly, leading to skepticism about their feasibility.
The governance of Gaza also remains a contentious issue. The plan suggests a temporary Palestinian and international committee would administer daily services, overseen by a board chaired by Donald Trump. Netanyahu has dismissed the possibility of the Palestinian Authority (PA) playing a role in Gaza without significant reforms. He has emphasized that the PA must undergo drastic changes, including stopping support for violence and changing educational materials that promote hatred.
Hamas, in a recent statement, rejected any notion of foreign oversight, complicating the prospect of effective governance in Gaza. As mediators from the United States, Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey prepare to facilitate discussions, the path to what Trump describes as a “strong, durable, and everlasting peace” remains fraught with challenges.
The political landscape in Israel has shifted significantly, particularly following the October 7 attacks, which have hardened public sentiment against a Palestinian state. Netanyahu has reiterated his commitment to preventing the establishment of such a state, stating, “We will fulfil our promise that there will be no Palestinian state. This place belongs to us.” This perspective complicates the possibility of a lasting peace, as many analysts believe that a viable resolution requires the establishment of a Palestinian state.
The ongoing conflict has not only devastated infrastructure and loss of life but has also influenced the attitudes of a generation of young Palestinians, raising questions about their willingness to pursue peace with Israel. As the situation evolves, the international community watches closely, concerned about the humanitarian implications and the broader geopolitical ramifications of a potential collapse of the ceasefire in Gaza.
