Let’s not kid ourselves: the recent truce between Israel and Hamas is not an end, but a breath, one of many in a region that has learnt to convulse between pulses of violence and fragile calm. The headlines proclaim “war over,” “ceasefire holds,” “hostages freed,” and even “victory declared.” Yet beneath that veneer lies a far more brittle reality: the war is merely on pause, the next chapter awaits its trigger.
Diplomats love to call what’s happening now a “ceasefire” or a “truce” carefully calibrated terms that admit potential for relapse. Unlike a formal peace agreement, this arrangement has no guarantor immune to pressure, no fully defined endgame, no new template for coexistence. It is conditional, fraught with mutual suspicion, and contingent on the goodwill (or restraint) of parties who barely trust their own shadows.
Hamas, weakened, war-worn, and starved of options, has accepted the pause. Israel, claiming strategic success, has declared the group “disarmed” and promises to keep pressure on in the background. In public, Netanyahu positions this as a victory: Hamas has been wounded, hostages regained, and a new configuration for Gaza put on the table. But declaring victory is exactly what strongmen do when they lack certainty, it’s a claim to dominate the narrative while keeping all cards in hand.
Why It’s Likely Just the Calm Before the Storm
- Unresolved core conflicts. The dispute isn't about hostages or temporary humanitarian corridors, it’s about land, authority, identity, control. Neither side has budged meaningfully on those existential fronts. With those levers still intact, the root causes of violence remain live.
- Ambiguous lines of withdrawal and control. Israel signals a pullback, but not a full exit. It promises to enforce demilitarization, but under what rules and oversight? Hamas agrees to a ceasefire but insists its core political and military identity remain untouched. That tension leaves open scores of potential violations, small or large, that can restart conflict.
- Internal pressures and spoilers. Extremist factions, militant offshoots, regional powers, even clan rivalries within Gaza can act as wildcards. One trigger, a rocket, a targeted killing, a border incursion, can cascade into full renewal of conflict. No centralized, ironclad control exists to prevent those flashpoints.
- Political incentives to rattle the chains. In Israel, hawks and right wing electorates pressure leaders to appear uncompromising. In Palestinian politics, radical legitimacy sometimes depends on demonstrating resistance, not ease. Each side has reasons to posture, to demand renewals of conflict rather than permanent quiet.
- A very asymmetrical position. Israel still wields overwhelming military advantage, intelligence superiority, diplomatic backing, naval and air dominance. In contrast, Hamas is more constrained its bargaining chips diminishing. Thus, Israel has more optionality to encroach, probe, or re-engage if it judges the time is right. The weaker party often bears the burden of restraint; here, Hamas must bend, and any perceived betrayal invites violence.
This ceasefire is a breathing space, not a border line. The next months will be a test of patience, endurance, signaling, and deterrence. Several scenarios loom:
Managed “violations” leading to escalation. Minor border incidents, say, rocket fire, sniper fire, or drone incursions, could be used by either side to justify resumption of broader military operations.
Incremental attrition. Israel may seek to apply pressure through blockades, targeted airstrikes, and periodic raids under the banner of enforcing demilitarization. Hamas, limited in capacity, may retaliate asymmetrically.
A new round, under new catalysts. A provocative assassination, a violent raid into a neighborhood, a prisoner-related dispute, any of these could blow the lid off. History shows truce-breaking often stems from what was presumed safe being tested.
Reopening political negotiations or collapse. Ideally a political framework might emerge that redefines governance in Gaza, reduces violence, and offers a roadmap. But given the zero-sum narratives both sides inhabit, that pathway is narrow and hazardous. More likely is a collapse back into kinetic confrontation.
By structural logic, Israel holds the upper hand. Its military power, strategic reserves, external log-rolling, and diplomatic leverage give it more mobility. It can choose when to push, probe, pull back. Hamas, even in good faith, is constrained: its legitimacy is tied to resistance, but its resources are leaky, its external support precarious.
Thus, if there is a next chapter, Israel is more likely to provoke or respond with force than vice versa. But that isn’t a guarantee: Hamas might preemptively lash out if it fears losses of credibility or imminent reentry by Israel.
No, the war has not “ended”only one phase has paused. Despite bold declarations, there is no durable settlement in place, no firm guarantee against resumption, no transformation of the power structures that birthed the violence. What we have is a fragile interlude, a forced winter between storms.
If we are to call this moment by its truest name, it is not peace, but a fragile restraint. The next chapter of this conflict will not surprise those watching patiently, it will most likely be written by the next violation, the next escalation, the next collapse of deterrence. Respite, yes. Resting, no.
No comments:
Post a Comment