The Fragile Ceasefire: Complexities and Implications for Gaza's Future
After 15 months of conflict and devastation, Israel and Hamas have reached a tentative ceasefire agreement aimed at ending the war in Gaza, a significant development mediated largely by Qatar and Egypt, alongside pressures from the Trump administration. However, the agreement is shrouded in uncertainty, reflecting deep internal divisions within the Israeli government and Hamas's weakened position.
The agreement echoes Security Council Resolution 2735 from June of last year, proposing a phased plan leading to an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and subsequent reconstruction. Yet, neither Israel's current leadership nor the military establishment appear inclined to fully implement such a withdrawal, particularly concerning strategic areas like the Philadelphi corridor and Netzarim corridor, crucial for Israeli security.
In the past 15 months, with Netanyahu's right-wing cabinet opposing peace efforts, the Israeli offensive has resulted in a staggering toll: over 46,780 Palestinian lives lost and approximately 111,600 injured, with reports suggesting the actual death toll could be significantly higher. About 80% of Gaza’s infrastructure has been damaged or destroyed, complicating reconstruction efforts immensely, especially given Israel's control over border crossings that limit aid and reconstruction materials.
Undeniably, the rebuilding of Gaza will be an arduous process, potentially taking decades and requiring substantial support from both Western nations and Gulf states. However, the realization of this goal hinges on the effective implementation of the current ceasefire agreement—an endeavor fraught with challenges. The Israeli government struggles with internal dissent, especially from extremist allies who threaten the stability of the coalition, while accusations fly between Israel and Hamas regarding compliance with last-minute demands.
Despite these obstacles, key opposition leaders in Israel have expressed public support for the ceasefire, possibly reinforcing Netanyahu's political standing as he maneuvers through a landscape shaped by Trump’s influence and favorable polling data. Conversely, Hamas finds itself in a precarious position, having suffered severe military and political losses. Their traditional support base is increasingly disillusioned with the leadership’s strategic miscalculations that preceded the violence.
Regionally, Hamas’s main sponsor, Iran, is dealing with its own crises. Key allies like Hezbollah have been substantially weakened, while shifts in leadership within Lebanon showcase the diminishing influence of Iran’s aligned factions. These dynamics further exacerbate Hamas's tenuous grip on power and its role in any post-agreement governing body.
As the ceasefire progresses, a crucial question arises about governance in Gaza. Netanyahu has expressed a staunch refusal to allow Hamas to hold power or for the area to be dominated by Fatah, the dominant faction in the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). This brings the attention back to Egypt and the UAE, whom Netanyahu appears to want to involve in the region’s governance, effectively sidelining the Palestinian Authority.
By leaning on these Arab nations to ensure security in Gaza, Netanyahu is effectively aiming to 'Arabize' the Palestinian issue, reminiscent of tactics used during the 1948 Nakba. This strategy aims to circumvent traditional Palestinian representation channels, ultimately shifting the responsibility for the Palestinian cause back into the hands of Arab states that have previously shown a willingness to negotiate concessions.
As this complex scenario unfolds, the international community is left to consider the long-term implications of the ceasefire and what it means for the stability of Gaza, the Palestinian Authority's legitimacy, and the broader Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape.
Related Sources: