Unspoken hurdles stare down the Gaza ceasefire
As negotiations in Egypt push toward a potential ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, the public narrative focuses on hostage releases and a consent-based transition plan. Yet the concerns not openly voiced—about Palestinian agency, governance, and the durability of any pause in fighting—may ultimately decide whether the deal endures. The plan touted by the United States and Israel hinges on a technocratic, international-leaning transition for Gaza. But what happens after the guns quiet is the critical question for millions living under blockade, poverty, and instability.
The governance trap: who decides Gaza’s future?
Central to the controversy is a proposed technocratic Palestinian committee charged with delivering basic services during a transitional period. While the idea promises efficiency and international oversight, critics warn it could sideline the very people it seeks to help. If the committee’s composition, authority, and duration are decided by external actors, Palestinians risk seeing a governance process that lacks legitimacy at the street level.
Equally contentious is the proposed Board of Peace, a body described as headed by U.S. leaders and, reportedly, including international figures. The absence of explicit Palestinian representation in this board fuels fears that the plan may become a medical cure with a political scalp—treating symptoms of crisis without addressing the root cause: Palestinian self-determination and a viable route to a sovereign state.
Demilitarisation vs. political reality
A major plank calls for Gaza’s demilitarisation, but the how, when, and by whom are left deliberately vague. In many Palestinian communities, armed resistance is framed not as an end in itself but as a response to decades of occupation and control. Demilitarisation, without a parallel path to political legitimacy and security guarantees, could erode trust and empower hardliners who prefer a permanent, divided status quo.
What the plan says—and what it leaves out
In practice, the framework envisions an international stabilisation presence and a staged handover to a restoration of governance to a reformed Palestinian Authority. Yet crucial questions remain unanswered: when will elections occur for the PA? Who will be eligible to stand, and who will certify reforms? If the Board of Peace or other international bodies scrutinise Palestinian candidates, many Palestinians fear that screenings will distort or suppress dissent, thus legitimising a governance model that may not reflect popular will.
Hamas itself has signaled readiness to release captives and to hand Gaza administration to foreign-leaning structures. But the group has also been explicit about remaining a key political actor. The plan’s language about excluding Hamas and other factions from governance further complicates any unity-building effort that most Palestinians say is essential to a durable peace. In short, the plan’s governance frame could empower external actors over internal Palestinian politics—an arrangement that many see as incompatible with true self-determination.
Palestinian public opinion: a barometer of legitimacy
Public sentiment in the Occupied Territories complicates any path toward a stable peace. Recent polling suggests significant support for a unified Palestinian leadership and a rejection of plans that disarm or expel Hamas without broader inclusivity. If a substantial portion of Gazans and West Bank residents view the PA’s reform and potential elections as insufficient or biased, the entire ceasefire could fray as communities demand a more participatory process.
Netanyahu and Trump: competing visions for Gaza
While Netanyahu and Trump project optimism about a lasting peace, their statements have exposed a rift with broader Palestinian expectations. Netanyahu has emphasized dismantling Hamas’s military and political reach, while implicitly resisting a fully reconciled, binational solution that would grant Palestinians equal agency. This tension underscores the risk that the ceasefire becomes a temporary pause rather than a durable political settlement.
The path forward: clarity, inclusivity, and accountability
To avoid the deal collapsing, negotiators must address core questions with transparent criteria: how long the international governance framework will operate, who will oversee reform and elections, and what forms of Palestinian participation are required for legitimacy. Without explicit commitments to Palestinian sovereignty, inclusive governance, and clear timelines, the ceasefire could become another chapter in a long history of fragile pauses—brief moments of respite in a conflict defined by deep-seated grievances.
Why this matters
The ultimate test is whether a ceasefire translates into real protections for civilians, a credible path to statehood, and an inclusive political future for all Palestinians. The plan’s appeal to humanitarian relief and stabilization cannot substitute for the political rights that Palestinians say they deserve. As talks resume, the world should demand not only hostage releases and service delivery promises but also a transparent, participatory route to governance that genuinely empowers Gazans to shape their own fate.
