The sustainability of the Israel-Gaza ceasefire

Following two years of relentless conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 68,000 Gazans since October 2023, a ceasefire has finally been brokered between Israel and Hamas. At the heart of the agreement lies U.S. President Trump’s 20-point plan which promises to deliver a “strong, durable, and everlasting peace.” Although the world was quick to celebrate what seems to be the end of destruction across the region, its sustainability remains uncertain. Does this ceasefire truly signal the end of the generational Israel-Palestine dispute, or will it become yet another failed attempt in a long legacy of broken peace efforts?

On 29 September, Trump revealed the plan in a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who confirmed Israel accepted the stipulated terms. The 20-points collectively seek to redevelop Gaza into a ‘terror-free zone’ through humanitarian aid, social reconciliation, and disarmament, whilst rebuilding its economy and governance under international supervision to promote long-lasting peace. On 3 October, Hamas announced a partial acceptance of the plan, agreeing to return all 48 remaining hostages being held in Gaza in exchange for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, and endorsing the idea of handing over the governance of Gaza to Palestinian technocrats. Although Hamas rejected disarmament and the renunciation of political influence, its response showed a readiness to negotiate within the framework of the proposal. The ceasefire went into effect on October 10, signalling the success of the plan’s initial phase, and drawing broad international support.

However, since the ceasefire began, Israel has reportedly committed 129 violations, killing 34 Palestinians and wounding 122 others. Israel killed at least 66 people in what they labelled “defensive” airstrikes in response to Hamas’ refusal to comply with select terms of the plan. Israel also accused Hamas of killing two IDF soldiers, claims that have since been debunked but continue to serve as an excuse for Israel’s repeated airstrikes against Gazan civilians.

To exacerbate this, Israel has only permitted an average of 89 trucks humanitarian aid per day, only 14% of the 600 trucks per day outlined within the agreement. Such restrictions are deepening the already dire humanitarian crisis. Israel’s conduct since the ceasefire clearly undermines the plan’s stated aim of peace and reconstruction. Netanyahu’s long-standing opposition to a two-state solution is an attitude that remains evident in his government’s current actions. Netanyahu’s unwilling to cooperate with Hamas, the main party of this conflict, and utter lack of empathy to suffering within Gaza suggest the plan serves more as a diplomatic performance for international audiences than as a genuine effort to resolve the conflict.

Even if these violations were dismissed as mere indiscretion and Netanyahu suddenly developed a sense of integrity, Trump’s 20-point plan still fails to offer a balanced resolution for peace. The central problem can be found in the name itself – Trump. As Israel’s foremost military and political backer, the USA cannot credibly act as an impartial mediator, least of all under Trump, who has openly declared his intent to take control of Gaza.

The plan effectively installs Trump as a quasi-ruler of Gaza by appointing him chair of the “Board of Peace,” a body empowered to preside over an apolitical Palestinian committee. This arrangement caters to Trump’s self-interest, allowing him to consolidate personal influence and potential profit from Gaza’s reconstruction, rather than prioritising the welfare of its people. This is further reflected in the plan’s neglect to establish a pathway toward Palestinian statehood or self-determination. It instead absolves the Israeli government of accountability for its ongoing atrocities in Gaza, while legitimising its continued territorial control.

The foundation of any lasting peace deal is mutual trust and understanding - two elements that remain almost entirely absent after decades of hostility.

The bias embedded throughout the plan was initially reflected in its design. The original draft of the plan, proposed by Muslim-majority nations, was significantly altered by Netanyahu and Trump’s administrations who removed clauses regarding a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, a pledge not to annex the West Bank and a plan for peace in line with the two-state solution. These changes expose the plan’s persistent favouritism toward Israel and lay the legal groundwork for a potential annexation of the Palestinian West Bank, an established ambition of Netanyahu’s government. This systemic fragmentation of Palestinian territory and its inhabitants serves to erode the viability of a two-state solution. As Israel continues to encroach on Palestinian rights to life and property in the West Bank, it becomes clear that a peace deal for Gaza alone will not bring an end to this conflict.

Unfortunately, a balanced and effective resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict does not appear to be on the horizon. Practically speaking, ‘the IDF cannot be allowed to occupy the Gaza strip in any form after perpetrating a genocide against the very people it intends to occupy.’ So long as it occupies Gaza, the possibility of renewed conflict will persist, as seen by the repeated ceasefire violations. Concurrently, Hamas’ refusal to completely disarm also threaten future stability, especially in light of Israel’s recent provocations.

Beyond the political and military dimensions, the human aspect of the conflict remains just as fractured. The foundation of any lasting peace deal is mutual trust and understanding - two elements that remain almost entirely absent after decades of hostility. The systematic dehumanisation of Palestinians within Israeli society has become deeply entrenched, not only shaping public perception both domestically and internationally, but also fuelling an atmosphere of violence. In turn, this fosters distorted views of the Jewish faith within parts of Palestine, promoting antisemitic sentiment and perpetuating a cycle of hatred and retaliation.

Ultimately, although the 20-point plan represents an improvement in the rhetoric surrounding the conflict, its tangible impact is severely hindered by the self-interest of the main parties involved. A concrete solution requires as much of a shift in ideology as a shift in legislation.

By Maryam Munshi

Image: Mohammed Assad/Middle East Monitor