Ceasefire’s fragile calm: a pause that forces questions about Gaza’s future
The quiet that fell over Gaza for a third day was not the deep silence of peace so much as the cautious hush of people catching their breath. A US-mediated truce has created a narrow corridor for the release of hostages, the return of displaced families and a summit in Egypt billed as the moment to “end the war.” But beneath the immediate relief — and the carefully choreographed optimism in Jerusalem and Sharm el-Sheikh — lie hard political choices that will shape the region for years.
- Advertisement -
Joy and rubble
Scenes from Gaza City this week have been wrenching: families walking long distances back to neighborhoods that may no longer exist, aid convoys threading through broken streets, rescue teams warning of unexploded ordnance. “There is a lot of joy among the people,” Abdou Abu Seada said, weary and relieved — but he quickly added that the joy is tempered by exhaustion after two years of conflict that has ravaged homes, hospitals and schools.
Rami Mohammad-Ali, who walked 15 kilometres with his son from Deir Al Balah to Gaza City, described a return complicated by shock. “We couldn’t believe the destruction we have seen,” he told reporters by phone. “We are joyful to return … but at the same time we have bitter feelings about the destruction.” He spoke of seeing human remains along roadsides — an awful reminder that the ceasefire relieves violence rather than erases its scars.
Official figures suggest the movement is large: Gaza’s civil defence agency said more than 500,000 people had returned to Gaza City since the truce took effect. The humanitarian need, already colossal, will only grow as families try to resettle amid a landscape of collapsed buildings, contaminated water and intermittent services.
The mechanics and politics of a swap
The truce’s most immediate test is the exchange of captives. Israeli officials say all 20 living hostages will be released together, part of a broader handover in which 48 captives, dead and alive, will be transferred in return for roughly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners held in Israel.
Prisoner swaps have a long, fraught history in the region — they deliver palpable human relief while deepening political cleavages at home. Benjamin Netanyahu has sought to frame the deal as a moment of national unity. “This is an emotional evening, an evening of tears, an evening of joy,” he said in a televised address, invoking scripture as he appealed for the country to set aside divisions.
But unity is not guaranteed. Polling and public gatherings show an Israel divided between a population desperate for the return of loved ones and hard-line voices who view the release of prisoners as an unacceptable concession. The booing of a supportive foreign envoy at a Tel Aviv rally is a small illustration of a larger domestic tension: security imperatives versus the moral compulsion to recover hostages.
Summit diplomacy and the shape of a post-war Gaza
What leaders will gather — and what they will agree
World leaders are converging on Sharm el-Sheikh for a summit that promises a “document ending the war” and a pathway for Gaza’s reconstruction. US President Donald Trump and Egypt’s Abdel Fattah al-Sisi are set to chair a meeting that, according to organisers, will include more than 20 countries and vows to “usher in a new era of regional security.” UN Secretary-General António Guterres, several European leaders and Middle Eastern monarchs are expected to attend.
That diplomatic bustle masks enormous practical questions: who will govern Gaza after the ceasefire? Who will provide and control reconstruction funds? How will security be guaranteed across the border? And crucially, who will enforce any agreement?
One voice within Hamas indicates the group may step back from day-to-day rule during a transition. A source close to the Hamas negotiating committee told journalists that the movement “will not participate at all in the transitional phase,” describing a relinquishing of direct control — even as it remains a “fundamental part of the Palestinian fabric.”
Yet on disarmament, Hamas appears to hold a harder line. For some leaders, surrendering arms is a red line; for others, an uneasy accommodation might be conceived if a long-term truce were guaranteed. The US-proposed 20-point plan calls for Hamas’ military infrastructure to be dismantled and for a technocratic Palestinian committee to manage public services in the interim — an arrangement that would reshuffle power on the Strip in ways that few in Gaza currently support or trust.
Global precedents and risks
International involvement in rebuilding and reordering conflict zones has precedents — Bosnia, post‑invasion Iraq, Kosovo — and each offers mixed lessons. Large-scale reconstruction often depends on sustained donor attention and a political framework that addresses local legitimacy. The rush of leaders to sign a document in Sharm el-Sheikh may be politically valuable, but unless it is matched by enforceable guarantees, transparent funding mechanisms and genuine Palestinian buy‑in, it risks becoming another paper agreement.
There are also grave legal and ethical questions about accountability for wartime conduct. Amnesties to accelerate peace are sometimes proposed, but they collide with demands for justice from victims’ families and international norms. How will the international community reconcile reconstruction with the need to investigate alleged violations of law during the conflict?
Longer-term questions
The ceasefire is a narrow window. It buys time — for hostages to return, for aid to flow, for damaged infrastructure to be assessed. But it also forces a broader conversation about the future that has been postponed for decades: whether Gaza can be reconfigured as a “deradicalised” zone divorced from Hamas, how Palestinian sovereignty and movement will be preserved, and whether regional actors will tie reconstruction to political outcomes.
As families sift through rubble, as diplomats prepare speeches and signatures, the region must confront uncomfortable trade-offs: security vs. dignity, speed vs. justice, external control vs. local legitimacy. Will the international community invest the patience and money this delicate architecture requires? Can Israelis and Palestinians find a framework that delivers both safety and self-determination?
Those are not questions for summit brochures; they are the daily questions of parents like Rami, who trudge home and try to imagine a life beyond survival. The immediate headlines may be filled with the drama of exchanges and arrivals. What matters for the longer term is whether the world uses this pause to build institutions that prevent the next war — and insists, simultaneously, on accountability and the right of people to rebuild their lives with dignity.
By Abdiwahab Ahmed
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
