Gaza ceasefire talks: Just a pause in Israel's forever war?

As a new round of indirect negotiations unfolds in the Qatari capital Doha, mediated by the United States, Egypt, and Qatar, Palestinians in Gaza find themselves trapped in a paradox.

On the one hand, the devastating humanitarian situation in Gaza demands an immediate cessation of hostilities. On the other hand, the memory of broken truces and political betrayal forces them to ask: does the latest ceasefire initiative bring the war closer to an end, or is it just another pause in a much longer, more complex conflict?

The "positive" response from Hamas to the recent American proposal has not been accompanied by the language of triumph or satisfaction.

Instead, it reflects a sobering calculation amid the dire conditions on the ground: destroyed homes, overwhelmed hospitals, starvation-level food insecurity, and more than a million displaced people, many of whom are surviving in tents or among the ruins of their former neighbourhoods.

This response raises more questions than answers. Is this truce a genuine step toward peace, or a reluctant survival strategy in a war whose end remains dictated not by its victims, but by those who hold power beyond Gaza’s borders?

On Monday, US President Donald Trump claimed that efforts to reach a ceasefire in Gaza were progressing, despite the lack of a breakthrough in recent negotiations between Israel and Hamas.

His remarks came during a meeting at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who again rejected a Palestinian state, amid growing scrutiny of Washington’s role in the 21-month-long war.

Speaking to reporters in an impromptu exchange, Trump said, "They want to meet and they want to have that ceasefire," referring to Hamas. "I don't think there is a hold-up. I think things are going along very well."

Trump's comments come as indirect talks between Hamas and Israel, held in Qatar over the weekend, ended without a final agreement. Negotiations are expected to continue in the coming days, as mediators, including the US, Egypt, and Qatar, push for a long-term truce to end the devastating Israeli military campaign in Gaza.

No mention of Palestinian leadership

The US president's assertion that Hamas was willing to engage in a ceasefire came without any mention of the Palestinian Authority or other representatives of Palestinian political factions.

Analysts have said such statements risk legitimising unilateral Israeli moves while sidelining broader Palestinian national representation.

During Monday's White House meeting, both Trump and Netanyahu addressed the possibility of population transfers, a topic that has stirred regional fears of ethnic cleansing.

"I have the cooperation of countries surrounding Israel," Trump said, without naming specific states. He added that discussions about the future of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank included possible "relocation options," sparking concern among rights advocates.

Netanyahu floats 'relocation' plans

Netanyahu, for his part, reiterated statements he has made in recent months about resettling Palestinians outside Gaza.

"We are working with the United States to identify countries that would give Palestinians a better future," he said, echoing language often used in right-wing Israeli circles to promote so-called "voluntary migration" from the Gaza Strip.

"If people want to stay, they can stay, but if they want to leave, they should be able to leave," Netanyahu added, in what critics may interpret as laying the groundwork for the gradual depopulation of Gaza through indirect pressure.

Such language has previously drawn condemnation from Palestinian officials, who argue that calls for "voluntary" migration mask a deeper policy of ethnic cleansing under the guise of humanitarian concern.

A truce of necessity, not of choice

Since the beginning of Israel's genocidal war in Gaza nearly 20 months ago, Hamas has signalled conditional openness to international efforts aimed at de-escalation. This included cautious engagement with ceasefire proposals from both former President Joe Biden and current President Donald Trump.

But experience has taught Palestinians that agreements rarely hold, especially in the absence of international enforcement or Israeli commitment.

The last major ceasefire, brokered earlier in the war, was only partially implemented. Israel carried out the first phase - hostage and prisoner exchanges - before halting further steps.

Meanwhile, its military continued operations in central and northern Gaza and tightened its grip on Rafah, the southern gateway once used for aid and evacuation.

Mustafa Ibrahim, a Gaza-based political expert, told The New Arab that Hamas, under immense internal and external pressure, has opted to deal with the proposal out of necessity rather than conviction.

"The people are exhausted," he said. "Food is scarce, hospitals are collapsing, and disease is spreading in the displacement camps. That alone makes the truce hard to reject."

Still, Ibrahim noted that Hamas has not given its full consent. The group has raised several objections regarding the mechanism for aid delivery, civil administration in postwar Gaza, the fate of weapons, and the absence of international guarantees for implementation.

These reservations reflect deep scepticism, not only toward Israel's intentions, but also toward Washington's role.

Many in Gaza fear that the ceasefire plan is less about justice and more about optics - an attempt to manufacture calm ahead, rather than deliver a foundation for sustainable peace.

Meanwhile, Israel has used the delay in reaching a deal to consolidate its military and political gains. Settlements are expanding in the West Bank, while UNRWA's role is being systematically undermined.

And discussions have resumed in Israeli media about "alternative governance models" for Gaza, ranging from Arab League administrators to non-Palestinian civil authorities under international supervision.

For Palestinians, this is not a peace process. It is a crisis management strategy, designed to contain violence without addressing its roots.

War or peace? The decision lies elsewhere

Despite the enormous toll borne by Palestinians, analysts widely agree that the decision to end the war lies primarily outside Palestinian hands. Instead, they argue, it depends on the political calculations of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump - two leaders whose domestic agendas are profoundly shaping the trajectory of the conflict.

Netanyahu remains entangled in a corruption trial that threatens his political survival. As long as the war continues, it provides a distraction from his legal woes and allows him to maintain unity among a deeply divided Israeli political landscape.

Moreover, the ongoing military campaign helps him fend off right-wing rivals who demand a “total victory” over Hamas.

President Trump, for his part, wants to project diplomatic strength and has long been fixated on a Nobel Peace Prize. Having taken credit for the neutralisation of Iran’s nuclear threat, he now seeks to brandish a second foreign policy achievement - an end to the Gaza war.

But critics argue that his administration’s approach, while aggressive, lacks the nuanced commitment needed to achieve lasting peace.

"The Americans want a deal fast, but not necessarily a just one," says Ayman Shaheen, a political science professor in Gaza. "They’re more interested in silencing the conflict than solving it."

Shaheen warns that any agreement struck under these conditions is likely to be fragile. He points to past truces that collapsed due to vague language, unverified commitments, and a lack of accountability.

He also expressed concern that the proposed ceasefire may be used to whitewash Israel’s international image while allowing normalisation efforts with Arab states to resume under the guise of regional stability.

Gaza-based analyst Iyad al-Qarra echoes these concerns. He warns that negotiations are still being conducted in a "grey zone," where the lack of transparency leaves too much room for manipulation. "The devil is in the details," he says. "And so far, those details haven’t been made public."

Al-Qarra notes that Israel's insistence on the disarmament of Hamas and Islamic Jihad remains a major stumbling block. One proposal reportedly gaining traction involves storing resistance weapons in sealed depots under international supervision - a scenario modelled on post-conflict Northern Ireland.

But many in Gaza view such suggestions as premature, especially in the absence of a political solution that restores Palestinian national rights.

Without a credible roadmap to end the occupation, dismantle settlements, and guarantee the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, disarmament will be seen as capitulation, not compromise.

Gaza's political future: Uncertain, fragmented, and externally engineered

As attention shifts to what Gaza might look like after the guns fall silent, another question looms: who will govern the Strip?

With the Palestinian Authority sidelined from negotiations and the PLO's diplomatic relevance steadily eroding, various international actors are now proposing alternative governance models. These include joint Arab administrations, international trusteeships, or even transitional authorities composed of technocrats under foreign oversight.

But such proposals face widespread resistance among Palestinians. Many see them as part of a broader strategy to weaken national institutions and transform the conflict from a political struggle into a humanitarian case.

Esmat Mansour, a political analyst from Ramallah, argues that the most alarming sign of this shift is the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.

"It’s a deliberate attempt to erase the refugee narrative," Mansour warns. "By replacing UNRWA, you undermine the right of return and reduce the Palestinian cause to a set of logistical problems."

Mansour also raises the issue of legitimacy. If neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority is allowed to lead the reconstruction of Gaza, who then speaks for Palestinians? Who has the mandate to negotiate on their behalf - or to accept, amend, or reject deals that reshape their future?

"The Palestinian national movement is being hollowed out from within and without," he says. "If this continues, any future truce will be managed by aid agencies, not political actors. That is not peace. That is abandonment."

Mukhaimer Abu Saada also emphasises the long-term risks of disconnecting humanitarian relief from political justice. While he acknowledges that some indicators - such as Israeli public fatigue and US strategic recalibration - suggest the war may be nearing a close, he warns that a ceasefire alone cannot rebuild a nation.

"If the truce does not lead to a genuine political solution based on international law and the 1967 borders, then it will only serve as a Band-Aid on a festering wound," he explains.

"Peace is not just the absence of war. It’s the presence of rights, sovereignty, and dignity."

Sally Ibrahim is a Palestinian reporter with The New Arab based in the Gaza Strip