EDITORIAL: After two years of relentless conflict, which brought about the deaths of more than 67,000 Palestinians, including thousands of women and children, and the annihilation of an entire way of life in Gaza, there is now some hope of relief following the signing of a ceasefire deal between Hamas and Israel on October 9.
Anchored by US President Donald Trump, the agreement initiates a multi-phase process, with the initial stage mandating an end to Israel’s onslaught in Gaza, its partial withdrawal from the territory and a prisoner exchange wherein Hamas will free all remaining Israeli hostages it had captured on October 7, 2023 for hundreds of Palestinians incarcerated in Israel.
Despite President Trump hoping that the deal eventually results in a “lasting peace”, the renewed hopes in Gaza are tempered by profound anxiety that the agreement may yet unravel at some stage. And such apprehensions are entirely understandable, given Israel’s history of reneging on promises, and overturning deals on the most minimal pretexts.
It is, then, incumbent upon President Trump to exercise unwavering diplomatic pressure on Tel Aviv to ensure this fragile truce is upheld and urgent aid in the form of food and medical aid flows into Gaza without any disruptions. Whether the US will play the role of a fair broker, however, remains doubtful, given its long-standing policy of aligning itself unconditionally with perceived Israeli security and political interests.
As has been pointed out by several observers, there are plenty of potential pitfalls. There is uncertainty over the list of Palestinian prisoners to be freed, with Israel reportedly reluctant to release certain high-profile leaders.
Furthermore, according to Israeli government sources, its army would only be withdrawing to an agreed line within the Gaza Strip that would still leave it in control of 53 percent of the territory, a situation that could yet jeapordise the truce.
With Israeli forces remaining stationed inside Gaza, the risk of confrontation sparked by even a slight misunderstanding will remain dangerously high, not that Tel Aviv has historically ever needed legitimate pretexts for blowing up peace accords. Moreover, this partial withdrawal demonstrates that the agreement remains fundamentally skewed in Israel’s favour, as does the wider 20-point plan that President Trump had unveiled earlier in the month.
Nevertheless, even if the ceasefire yields only a short-term pause in the unremitting violence, it would constitute a desperately needed respite for a people who have endured the unbearable: the loss of countless loved ones and the systematic destruction of their homes and heritage.
Moreover, as the war in Gaza expanded into a broader regional crisis, drawing in Lebanon, Yemen, Iran and even Qatar — an escalation fuelled by Israel’s inexorable belligerence and unwavering US support — even this tenuous agreement will be met with sighs of relief across the Middle East.
Prospects for a just and lasting peace under the wider 20-point agreement, however, remain deeply uncertain, primarily due to its inherent imbalance.
The agreement reflects Israeli priorities while marginalising Palestinian voices, leading to a critical lack of clarity on the core political question: the future of a Palestinian state. This denial of self-determination is institutionalised in the proposed transitional phase.
As has been noted previously in this space, the plan proposes a Board of Peace to oversee Gaza, a body unaccountable to Palestinians and controversially slated to include figures like Tony Blair, whose political legacy played a huge part in fuelling the region’s enduring conflicts. The fact remains that genuine peace is contingent upon two non-negotiable conditions: accountability for the genocide in Gaza and a viable, sovereign Palestinian state. Until then, the current pause in hostilities remains a fragile respite, and not necessarily a pathway to peace.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025