It's still a pause more than peace in Gaza

US President Donald Trump says the war in Gaza is over. The hostages have been freed, the bombs have stopped for now, and Trump has gone back home feeling smug about his star turn ushering in “a new dawn in the Middle East”.

The reality is more complex. A ceasefire and a partial pullback are welcome first steps, but the plan allows Israel to retain control of large parts of Gaza, and the timeline for full withdrawal is unclear.

Netanyahu even declined the invitation to attend the ceasefire ceremony in Egypt. The peace plan, such as it is, does not mandate cooperation with international law or investigators. Israeli forces remain inside Gaza, and aid and fuel supplies still depend on crossings that can close without warning.

For people in Gaza, there is some relief. The shelling has largely stopped, aid deliveries are trickling in, and a few thousand detainees have returned home. Some families have begun the long walk north, but the peace couldn’t be more fragile. Israel has also announced that it will not abide by the humanitarian terms of the ceasefire agreement.

The process itself is a minefield. There was confusion over even the handover of the mortal remains of deceased hostages. A single dispute over hostages, weapons or the tiniest ‘governance’ detail could snap the fragile peace. The other grim possibility is an endless indeterminate state of no big airstrikes but no real rights for Palestinians either, no real return home for them, and a chain of crowded camps becoming the new normal.

A day after the signing of the ceasefire deal, Israeli forces shot dead nine Palestinians in Gaza. Even as Trump was announcing the historic dawn of a new Middle East, Netanyahu was vowing to demilitarise Gaza, threatening that if it couldn’t be done the easy way, it would be done the hard way. That is not the language of peace; it sounds like someone is keeping options open.

Israeli hostages released by Hamas reunite with their kin in Tel Aviv No chance Gaza peace plan will last

The peace plan was designed outside Palestine, with Egypt, Qatar, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates acting as fixers and monitors. That support helped secure the pause, but Palestinians have had no say in it, on who governs them, when troops may leave, how people will move, and how rebuilding will work.

The peace-brokers had to use their leverage for clear deadlines, a full and verifiable withdrawal, open crossings and binding protections of basic rights. Without that, Gaza will be managed by outsiders while locals carry the cost and blame when the system fails.

On the ground, the scale of loss is beyond words. Hundreds of thousands are dead or injured. Whole neighbourhoods in Gaza City and Khan Younis are gone. Most hospitals are not functional. Schools are destroyed. To recover from this ‘domicide’ that has rendered the Strip practically uninhabitable will take generations. Families returning to the north are walking through streets they can barely recognise, past ghosts of buildings reduced to dust.

Confronted with this reality, the 20-point plan looks really sketchy. It says Israel will not annex Gaza and Hamas will not govern. It provides for an international council to supervise the territory and for Palestinian technocrats to run daily affairs. It vaguely hints that this may create a pathway to Palestinian self-determination, if reforms occur, if security conditions allow, if...

The script is familiar. Pathways without deadlines are a way to postpone decisions and dodge responsibility. A council of outsiders directing a population is not sovereignty or self-rule — it’s a dubious trusteeship.

There is a serious risk of this peace deal becoming a bad example. If a genocide is followed by a peace deal that focuses on cessation of hostilities while justice waits, others will learn that massive force can change facts on the ground and later the world will pay to rebuild.

A peace plan that is anything but

To prevent that, the plan must include protection of evidence, open access for investigators, careful screening of all security forces, reparations for victims, and firm rules against impunity. These are not details to be left for later — they are the foundation of any peace that deserves the name.

The credibility of global institutions is also at stake. The UN Commission and other UN bodies have named the crime: it is a genocide. The ICC has issued arrest warrants. If the deal sidelines those findings or treats the warrants as a nuisance, it will damage the standing of these institutions and their guardrails for the protection of civilians. Unless Gaza governance arrangements and reconstruction monies are made contingent on real cooperation on these legal tracks, the peace process is doomed.

Votaries of the plan say it will transform the region. They speak of expanding the Abraham Accords, of even drawing Iran into a new order. They promise rapid disbursal of funds for rebuilding. But the Gulf states will not write blank cheques while Israeli troops still control large parts of Gaza and while crossings and fuel are subject to political whim. Saudi Arabia and others want firm signals that this process leads to a Palestinian state, but Netanyahu has rejected that again and again.

Will there be a full verified withdrawal adhering to a clear timetable? Will there be a security arrangement under a UN mandate rather than an open-ended Israeli footprint rebranded as a ‘buffer’? Will crossings open for people and goods flow without arbitrary closures? Will Palestinians choose their own leaders and design their own reconstruction, or will an international board manage them at arm’s length? Will aid flow for a few days and then stall at checkpoints, or will it flow reliably, regularly, predictably?

These are the real questions — and their answers will determine if Palestinians can hope for a life of hope or will it be a life in tents under forced occupation.

Ashok Swain is a professor of peace and conflict research at Uppsala University, Sweden. More of his writing may be read here