Israel does not wish to complete the first phase of the ceasefire agreement and move to the second phase, practically ending the war.
Its position has been solidified by the Trump administration’s absolute support, which calls for the eradication of Hamas and daily threats that if it does not release the Israeli hostages it will open “the gates of hell”.
Certainly, the Trump administration has helped an already extremist Israel become even more extreme.
It places new conditions every day before the implementation of the second phase of the ceasefire agreement, especially since it is certain of its “brute force” position, and is working to impose its conditions by armed force with US support in light of Arab weakness and Palestinian division.
The failure of this current truce, even if implemented, will not eliminate the questions raised about the future of the Palestinian issue and the Hamas movement.
The most prominent of these is that the movement’s military strength has been greatly weakened.
Though Hamas has lost the largest part of its military capabilities, Israel has failed to eliminate it, and it has not ended politically.
Despite its popular support having fractured, it still commands a portion of it.
It is certain that Hamas will not govern Gaza after any ceasefire agreement, and it will remain excluded from the political arrangements for managing the sector.
Yet it cannot be fully excised from Palestine’s political scene, even if its military capabilities are weakened and its remaining pockets are unable to carry out any armed resistance operations against the Israeli occupation – a situation that may represent an alternative to Israel’s demand to disarm Hamas and raise the “white flag.”
Egypt has presented a proposal with the names of 15 independent Palestinian figures to manage Gaza, none of whom will be from Hamas or Fatah.
The challenge remains as to whether this administration can become a pathway to a political solution and the restoration of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, or whether it will remain within the framework of “civilian support,” as the Israeli government asserts and rejects any horizon for a political solution.
Netanyahu’s project and his declared discourse reject the two-state solution, and consider the Oslo Accords, which represented the only peace agreement between the Palestinian and Israeli sides, as the cause of the October 7 Hamas-led attack.
He also announced his rejection of the Palestinian Authority’s return to govern the Gaza Strip, and views Fatah and Hamas are two sides of the same coin. He rejects the rule of “Fatahstan” and “Hamastan,” viewing them as two faces of extremism and terrorism, while the world, the United Nations, and the Palestinian people want the ceasefire to be the beginning of restoring the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and building their independent state.
However Israel’s arrogance, as expressed by Netanyahu, utterly rejects these solutions.
A political path cannot be discussed without the emergence of a new Palestinian leadership capable of overcoming the division between Fatah and Hamas, and restoring the path of peaceful and legal resistance and popular struggle, which must take precedence over armed resistance, in a long battle which must begin with the ceasefire.
About the author:
Amr al-Shobaky is an Egyptian writer, political analyst and managing-editor of Ahwal Masria magazine. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science from Cairo University (1983), a Master’s degree in Political Science from the Institute of Political Studies in France (1993), and a PhD in Political Science from the Sorbonne University in France (2002).
