Why Gaza’s Ceasefire Won’t Last

The international community is placing enormous expectations on the proposed Gaza ceasefire, viewing it as a potential turning point in a conflict that has ravaged countless lives for generations. Yet beneath global acclaim, this arrangement appears destined to collapse. The fundamental flaw lies in mistaking short-term truces for lasting peace.

The agreement’s operational elements, including a 60-day cessation of hostilities, prisoner swaps, and humanitarian assistance, might temporarily diminish bloodshed. But they fall short of confronting the deep-rooted political and systemic factors driving the Israeli Palestinian conflict. What emerges instead is merely a precarious intermission, vulnerable to collapse.

Conflict resolution scholar Edward Azar has observed that enduring social conflicts persist not because of singular incidents, but due to the ongoing rejection of fundamental human needs, including identity recognition and self-determination. This ceasefire threatens to become ensnared in precisely that predicament.

What’s There and Isn’t There

The ceasefire establishes a staged approach: a 60-day suspension of combat, reciprocal exchanges of hostages and detainees, expanded humanitarian assistance, and future negotiations. Egypt, Qatar, and the United States function as intermediaries. Israel has conditionally agreed but Hamas maintains reservations, insisting on complete Israeli withdrawal and a permanent end to military operations.

However, the agreement sidesteps fundamental political issues. It maintains Israel’s siege of Gaza, a blockade that has strangled the region’s economy and everyday existence for more than 16 years. There’s no meaningful progress toward acknowledging Palestinian sovereignty, removing movement limitations, or terminating occupation measures in the West Bank. Essentially, it overlooks the underlying injuries while treating only surface symptoms.

Historical precedent reveals the likely trajectory. From the 2014 Gaza conflict to the temporary truces of 2021, ceasefires have provided momentary respite before crumbling under persistent resentments. When fundamental circumstances remain unaltered, the results stay consistent.

Absence of Trust

Ceasefires demand more than agreements; they demand confidence. Yet here, the intermediaries are perceived as biased. Hamas views the United States not as an impartial facilitator but as a steadfast supporter of Israeli positions. America’s weapons suppliesand diplomatic protection for Israel erode its believability among Palestinians.

Egypt and Qatar contribute regional credibility, but their influence remains constrained. Without broad faith in the neutrality and competence of intermediaries, the ceasefire threatens to collapse whenever hostilities resurface. Scholar William Zartmanobserves that the “ripeness” for settlement relies not merely on mutually painful deadlocks but also on having a credible third party. That prerequisite is notably missing in this situation.

Peace also demands a basic level of reciprocal acknowledgment. However, the stark disparity between Israel, a technologically sophisticated military force, and Hamas, a non-state armed organization controlling a blockaded territory, warps the dynamics. Israel declines to acknowledge Hamas as a valid participant, labeling it exclusively as a terrorist entity. Hamas, conversely, maintains its position as a resistance organization, fearful of forfeiting grassroots backing or political legitimacy through accommodation.

The reciprocal denial of the other’s standing locks both parties into winner-takes-all thinking. Every compromise is characterized as capitulation. Every negotiation gets rejected as treachery. This renders enduring diplomacy virtually unattainable.

Both Northern Ireland and post-apartheid South Africa provide examples of genuine long-term peace construction. In each instance, the transformation required more than momentary quiet; it necessitated profound examination of historical wounds, political identities, and representative structures.

The present Gaza ceasefire, in contrast, tackles manifestations—hostage situations, humanitarian restrictions, and missile attacks—not the fundamental disease. There exists no framework to examine the multi-decade occupation, no strategy to restore Palestinian self-governance, and no progress toward political participation or enduring rights. Without confronting these issues, the pattern of violence stays entrenched.

Disruptors Await

Conflict resolution expert Stephen Stedman developed the notion of “spoilers,” parties who intentionally sabotage peace efforts when they perceive their interests under threat. This ceasefire faces vulnerability from numerous directions. Within Israel, extremist elements in the ruling coalition resist any arrangement involving Hamas negotiations. Among Palestinians, competing organizations, including groups more militant than Hamas, might denounce the truce as surrender, or view it as endangering their authority.

Beyond armed participants, disenchanted populations are still mourning casualties, and devastated communities may regard the arrangement as hollow. Without systems to neutralize or incorporate disruptors—through participation, deterrence, or external assurances—peace will continue to be held captive by the most vocal opponents.

Staged peace initiatives can succeed. Trust-building actions, such as detainee releases and facilitation of aid deliveries, can establish foundations for confidence. However, they also demand strong oversight and well-defined penalties for violations.

Without these elements, progressive agreements typically stagnate or collapse. The Oslo Accords during the 1990s started with gradualism but lacked implementation mechanisms, resulting in disappointment across both communities. This ceasefire threatens to follow the same trajectory without accountability frameworks supported by meaningful international leverage.

Broader Implications

Gaza’s developments echo well beyond its boundaries. Ceasefires might temporarily stop the killing, but when they replace political solutions instead of creating pathways toward them, they establish conditions for future conflicts. Without authentic conflict transformation, the same pattern repeats of truce, breach, and revenge, with escalating human casualties.

For decades, international diplomacy has approached the Israeli Palestinian conflict as a crisis requiring management rather than a dispute needing transformation. This reactive strategy has generated numerous fragile truces and unsuccessful negotiations, each failure diminishing public confidence in diplomacy while strengthening extremist voices across both communities.

Conflict transformation presents an alternative approach. It demonstrates that lasting peace isn’t about perfect harmony; it concerns constructing durable political structures, mechanisms that can withstand disruptions, represent opponents equitably, and adapt through time. It demands institutions that allow deeply polarized societies to coexist, distribute authority, and settle disagreements without violence.

From this perspective, the Gaza ceasefire isn’t a peace agreement. It’s a test: of whether international participants will move past appearances and dedicate themselves to the difficult, extended process of tackling fundamental causes like occupation, statelessness, disparity, and mistrust. It’s also a test of whether global communities, regionally and internationally, will insist on more than momentary respite or superficial tranquility. Genuine peace cannot be delegated to negotiators, enforced through strength, or achieved through media events. It must emerge organically, anchored in legitimacy, reciprocal acknowledgment, and systemic change. This ceasefire might provide temporary quiet. However, without creating a meaningful route toward justice and political settlement, it will remain exactly what it is: an intermission, not peace.

This first appeared on FPIF.

The post Why Gaza’s Ceasefire Won’t Last appeared first on CounterPunch.org.