Navigating a New Gaza Ceasefire: Prospects, History, and Pathways to Lasting Peace
- Khoshnaw Rahmani
- 18 hours ago
- 5 min read
Khoshnaw Rahmani, Jadetimes
K. Rahmani is a Jadetimes news reporter covering politics.
A Ceasefire within Reach
After twenty-one months of intense hostilities in Gaza, indirect talks in Doha and Cairo are edging Israel and Hamas toward a new U.S.–backed ceasefire proposal. The deal envisions a 60-day truce, phased hostage and prisoner exchanges, humanitarian aid surges, and the redeployment of Israeli forces from populated areas of Gaza. Both sides express cautious optimism, yet political divisions and mutual distrust threaten to unravel negotiations before implementation.
Anatomy of the Proposed Deal
The current draft agreement—shaped by mediators from the United States, Qatar, and Egypt—centers on five pillars:
Hostage and Prisoner Exchange Hamas would release 28 hostages (10 alive, 18 deceased) in stages. Israel would reciprocate by freeing hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, prioritizing women, minors, and those with health conditions.
60-Day Truce Window A complete halt to combat operations—airstrikes, ground incursions, rocket fire—lasting two months. Both parties agree to negotiate a permanent ceasefire during this interval.
Israeli Military Redeployment Israel commits to pulling back troops from northern and southern Gaza following initial hostage releases. The fate of strategic zones like the Netzarim Corridor remains the chief sticking point.
Humanitarian Aid Surge Up to 600 UN-supervised aid trucks per day, humanitarian pauses for medical evacuations, and safe corridors for displaced civilians to return home under international oversight.
Post-Truce Governance and Reconstruction Framework discussions to commence on Gaza’s “day after” governance, security arrangements, infrastructure rebuilding, and potential roles for the Palestinian Authority and international partners.
Historical Context: Israel–Hamas Conflict
Understanding today’s ceasefire hinges on tracing the Israel–Hamas relationship from its roots:
1. Founding and Early Years (1987–2000)
Hamas formed during the First Intifada (1987–1993) as an Islamist offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, rejecting the PLO’s secular diplomacy and advocating armed resistance against Israel.
2. Oslo Era and Gaza Takeover (1993–2007)
Despite the 1993 Oslo Accords, Hamas opposed the peace process. In 2006, it won Palestinian legislative elections and, in 2007, seized control of Gaza, ousting Fatah forces and prompting an Israeli–Egyptian blockade.
3. Major Conflicts in Gaza
o 2008–2009 (Operation Cast Lead): A three-week campaign marked by heavy bombardment and thousands of casualties on both sides.
o 2012 (Operation Pillar of Defense): A week-long exchange of airstrikes and rocket fire.
o 2014 (Operation Protective Edge): Fifty days of fighting, 2,200 Palestinian and 73 Israeli deaths, and widespread Gaza devastation.
o 2021 (May Conflict): Eleven days of hostilities triggered by tensions in East Jerusalem, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths.
o 2023–Present (October War): Initiated by Hamas’s unprecedented October 7 attack, this war has claimed over 57,000 Gazan lives and 1,200 Israelis, displaced 2.3 million Palestinians, and leveled much of Gaza’s infrastructure.
4. Previous Ceasefires and Failures Temporary truces in late 2023 and early 2025 collapsed over disagreements on aid access, troop withdrawals, and mutual compliance—underscoring the fragility of interim deals.
Conflict Dynamics and Motivations
The Israel–Hamas struggle is driven by competing objectives:
Hamas’s Goals: End the blockade, achieve prisoner releases, gain political legitimacy, and assert itself as Gaza’s defender.
Israel’s Objectives: Secure the release of hostages, dismantle Hamas’s military capacity, and prevent future cross-border attacks.
Mutual Distrust: Recurrent breaches of past agreements and divergent endgames reinforce the fear that any pause in fighting will be exploited.
Technological advancements—drones, tunnel warfare, precision munitions—and urban combat in densely populated areas have intensified civilian suffering and complicated military objectives on both sides.
Comparative Analysis: Israel vs. Hamas, PLO/Fatah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad
To understand why ceasefires hold (or collapse) differently, it helps to examine each group’s origins, goals, and governance roles:
Hamas (Gaza)
Founding: Emerged in 1987 during the First Intifada as an Islamist offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, explicitly rejecting the secular PLO’s approach.
Strategy: Balances armed resistance—rocket fire, tunnel operations—with de-facto governance of Gaza, running schools, health services, and social programs.
Territorial Control: Since 2007, exercises full administrative authority in Gaza after forcibly expelling Fatah elements.
Ceasefire Compliance: Tactical and often short-lived. Hamas agrees to pauses when it serves political or humanitarian aims, then resumes operations if core demands (blockade lifting, prisoner releases) go unmet.
PLO/Fatah (West Bank)
Founding: Established in 1964 as the umbrella secular nationalist movement led by Yasser Arafat, spearheading the Palestinian Liberation Organization.
Strategy: Emphasizes diplomatic engagement—Oslo Accords, UN recognition—paired with limited security coordination with Israel.
Territorial Control: Exercises administrative autonomy in designated Areas A and B under the 1993 Oslo framework (primarily in the West Bank).
Ceasefire Compliance: Generally adheres to negotiated pauses, chafing under armed factions but maintaining formal agreements in line with its quasi-state role.
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
Founding: Coalesced in the early 1980s among Islamist militants in Gaza, smaller and less politically institutionalized than Hamas.
Strategy: Focuses almost exclusively on militancy—rocket barrages, suicide attacks—eschewing governance or political processes.
Territorial Control: No formal governing authority; operates through clandestine cells and external funding, primarily from Iran.
Ceasefire Compliance: Sporadic at best. PIJ often rejects extended truces unless they include broad prisoner releases, and its independent command structure means it can break ceasefires unilaterally.
By mapping these core attributes—founding ethos, methods of resistance or diplomacy, degree of territorial governance, and patterns of ceasefire behavior—we see why a truce with Hamas in Gaza requires different guarantees and oversight than one brokered with West Bank–based Fatah or with PIJ’s decentralized militancy. Each group’s unique mix of political legitimacy, military capacity, and external backing shapes both its willingness and its ability to uphold any temporary halt in fighting.
Regional and International Dimensions
Ceasefire prospects are shaped by broader actors and norms:
Regional Mediators: Qatar and Egypt facilitate indirect talks, leveraging ties to both sides.
U.S. Involvement: Washington provides diplomatic cover and aid guarantees, seeking a foreign policy win while balancing domestic political pressures.
Iran and Hezbollah: Tehran funds Hamas and PIJ; Hezbollah’s posture on Israel’s northern border risks opening a second front.
International Law: UN resolutions 242 and 338 underpin “land for peace” principles; ceasefire terms must align with humanitarian law and ensure civilian protection.
Humanitarian Impact and Reconstruction Challenges
The siege and bombardment have precipitated a dire humanitarian crisis:
Casualties: Over 71,000 Gazans killed, 136,000 wounded; 1,700 Israeli soldiers and civilians killed (as of mid-2025).
Displacement: Nearly all of Gaza’s 2.3 million residents forcibly uprooted, many multiple times.
Infrastructure Damage: 70–80% of housing destroyed, hospitals and water networks in ruins.
Aid Access: Past ceasefires faltered over control of aid distribution—UN agencies vs. private contractors.
Reconstruction demands a comprehensive plan encompassing demining, shelter rebuilding, water restoration, and economic revival under international supervision.
Timeline of Key Milestones
1987: Hamas founded during First Intifada
1993: Oslo Accords signed
2005: Israel withdraws settlers from Gaza
2007: Hamas seizes Gaza; blockade begins
2008–09: Operation Cast Lead
2012: Operation Pillar of Defense
2014: Operation Protective Edge
2021: May Gaza–Israel conflict
Oct 7, 2023: Hamas launches large-scale attack
Jan–Mar, 2025: Brief ceasefire and prisoner exchanges
July, 2025: Indirect talks produce new 60-day ceasefire draft
Pathways to Durable Peace
Breaking the cycle of violence requires addressing core issues:
1. Security Guarantees: Third-party monitoring, phased disarmament, and border deterrence.
2. Political Inclusion: Engaging moderate Palestinian voices to manage Gaza governance post-Hamas.
3. Economic Development: Unlocking investment, rebuilding infrastructure, and creating jobs.
4. Right of Return vs. Compensation: Exploring civil-law remedies and compensation funds to address refugee claims.
5. Regional Integration: Incentivizing Arab normalization with Israel linked to Palestinian progress.
Expert analyses underline that combining security arrangements with socio-economic incentives offers the best chance for a sustainable outcome.
Seizing the Moment
A new ceasefire deal could deliver a critical pause to save lives and open diplomatic channels long obstructed by war. But without robust implementation mechanisms, political will, and inclusive reconstruction plans, any truce risks repeating past failures. For Israelis and Palestinians alike, the window to transform this pause into genuine progress is narrow—and will depend on the resilience of mediators, the pragmatism of leaders, and the resolve of the international community to back both security and rebuilding in tandem.
