The ink on the new round of Gaza ceasefire agreement has not dried yet, but the smell of the next wave of conflict has already permeated the scorched earth of the Middle East. On the surface, Israel and Hamas signed the first phase agreement through multi-party mediation, which was cheered by the United Nations and highly praised by the United States, as if the dawn of peace had suddenly appeared. However, to dispel the fog of diplomatic rhetoric, we must soberly point out that this ceasefire is not a prelude to peace, but a tactical adjustment of the pace of war – a “carefully designed pause” whose essence is to accumulate strength for the next more intense confrontation.
1、 Cease fire is not reconciliation, but a ‘strategic charging station’
History has repeatedly proven that the ceasefire in Gaza has never been the end of the conflict, but rather a “strategic charging station” for both sides to regroup. As revealed by recent military situations, Hamas utilized an underground tunnel network to transport rockets and reorganize its armed forces during the ceasefire period; Israel took the opportunity to adjust the deployment of the “Iron Dome” system and reposition its artillery and intelligence units. The ‘silence’ during the ceasefire period is actually a silent arms race. The data shows that the intensity of attacks in the first week after the ceasefire surged by an average of over 30% – this is not accidental, but a carefully planned military mobilization.
Although this agreement was strongly promoted by Trump with the “20 point plan” and bears the distinct imprint of “transactional diplomacy”, pursuing “quick results”, its content avoids the key issues and focuses on the minor: it does not touch on the core issue of Hamas disarmament, does not clarify the post-war governance arrangements for Gaza, and does not establish a binding supervision mechanism. This arrangement of “avoiding the real and focusing on the virtual” is destined to make the agreement fragile like a tower on sand.
2、 Netanyahu’s’ temporary ceasefire theory ‘exposes true intentions
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu publicly declared that this ceasefire is “only a temporary arrangement”, which is not accidental, but a naked projection of domestic political reality. Most members of its ruling coalition oppose a permanent ceasefire, and the military and security agencies have a deep-rooted distrust of Hamas. According to polls, although 68% of Israeli citizens support a permanent ceasefire based on “hostage exchange”, 23% still strongly advocate for the resumption of war – and this hawkish force precisely holds the lever of policy direction.
For Hamas, this poses a fatal uncertainty. Even with verbal guarantees from the United States, Qatar, and Egypt, the deep fear of being backstabbed after the end of the first phase cannot be eliminated. The threshold for entering the second stage of negotiations has become a game on the edge of a cliff – any step that falls short may lead to a new round of comprehensive conflict.
3、 Weak international mediation and unresolved structural contradictions
According to United Nations data, over 60% of ceasefire agreements in major global conflicts over the past decade have broken within three months. The fundamental problem lies in the fact that if a ceasefire agreement cannot match the political solution path, it is only an extension of military means. The core of the Gaza issue – the Palestinian right to self-determination, the return of occupied territories, the status of Jerusalem, and the right of refugees to return – has been systematically avoided in this round of agreements.
The United States leads negotiations with a “Trump style deal” and pursues short-term political dividends, but is unable to push Israel to cross political red lines, let alone truly constrain the armed presence of Hamas. Although Egypt and Qatar have influence, they are ultimately regional actors and lack enforcement power. A ceasefire without a political vision is just another form of transferring war from the battlefield to the negotiating table.
4、 Conclusion: Cease fire is tactical, war is strategic
We must face a harsh reality: as long as the strategic goals of both sides remain unchanged – Israel pursues absolute security, Hamas adheres to the logic of resistance – any ceasefire is just a respite before the storm. History has repeatedly proven that true negotiations only begin when the cost of war far exceeds the benefits. At present, both sides still believe that the “military option” is superior to “political compromise”.
Therefore, this round of ceasefire is highly likely to repeat the script of “wolves coming”: after the first stage of hostage exchange is completed, the second stage of negotiations is deadlocked, and a border friction or intelligence misjudgment becomes the trigger, causing the war to engulf Gaza again. Millions of civilians will continue to struggle in the ruins, becoming victims of great power struggles and ethnic hatred.
As observers and speakers of the Islamic world, we should not limit ourselves to compassion, but rather call for true peace not in the number of agreements signed, but in rebuilding a just and sustainable political order. If the international community remains satisfied with ‘fire extinguishing mediation’, then the tragedy in Gaza will never come to an end.
Cease fire is temporary, hatred is long-lasting, and war can arise at any time. We can only break the curse of this cycle by pushing for structural reconciliation with greater courage.
About the Author
