پندرہ ماہ کی مسلسل بمباری اور قتل عام کے بعد، غزہ جنگ بندی معاہدے کا پہلا مرحلہ اتوار کی شام 19 جنوری 2025 کو حرکت میں آیا، جس میں حماس کے ہاتھوں تین اسرائیلی یرغمالیوں اور اسرائیل کے ہاتھوں 90 فلسطینی قیدیوں کی رہائی کے ساتھ ساتھ غزہ میں جنگ بندی کا معاہدہ طے پایا۔

Gaza After the Guns Fall Silent: What Will Define Gaza’s Future?

Anum Akhlaq

After fifteen months of relentless bombardment and absolute carnage, the first phase of the Gaza ceasefire deal was set in motion on Sunday evening, January 19, 2025, with the release of three Israeli hostages by Hamas and 90 Palestinian prisoners by Israel, along with the movement of aid trucks and displaced Palestinians.

The three-stage ceasefire agreement, brokered by Qatar, Egypt, and the US, is designed to last 42 days per phase, aiming for an extended halt in hostilities. In the first phase, captives are expected to be released, along with the entry of 600 humanitarian aid trucks per day, partial withdrawal of Israeli troops, and the return of internally displaced Palestinians to northern Gaza. However, the details of phases 2 and 3 remain uncertain, as they are yet to be fully negotiated.

In other words, no agreement exists regarding the implementation of the second and third phases, nor is there any written guarantee from Israel against resuming fighting after the first phase. Nonetheless, it is planned that the second phase will focus on the long-term recovery of Gaza as Israel is expected to withdraw its troops from the Philadelphi Corridor completely. Moreover, a 3-5-year reconstruction plan is to be carried out under international supervision in the third phase.

While this truce marks a temporary de-escalation, it is a ceasefire without peace. The lack of binding commitments, enforcement mechanisms, and a clear political roadmap – along with the risk of spoilers and renewed conflict – makes the deal precarious. Though it has provided a brief respite from bloodshed, the long-term future of Gaza and the Israel-Palestine relationship remains uncertain and fragile.

Given the grey areas, a number of factors are likely to influence the conflict’s post-ceasefire trajectory. The narrative centered on the perception of war outcomes and the accomplishment of war goals is the most relevant. At the beginning of the war, Israel stated two war objectives: to bring home Israeli hostages captured on October 7, 2023, by military means and to eliminate Hamas, the absolute overriding key objective. Looking at it after 67 weeks, it was a total failure. The Israeli state has killed far more of its own hostages than it has rescued by military means, with the only mass hostage rescue taking place because of a ceasefire and an exchange of detainees. Despite the obvious, Israel’s authority claims that it has degraded Hamas’ military infrastructure.

Though Israel was successful in destroying Hamas’ military assets, killing key leadership, and disrupting its ability to coordinate attacks amid destruction, Hamas is recovering fast, with more recruitments in fighting spaces. And even though the organization and training of recruits might not be as sophisticated as at the beginning of the war, its command structure remains operational. Israel failed to dismantle Hamas or neutralize its capacity for future attacks. This is what Blinken also said indirectly, “We assess that Hamas has recruited almost as many new militants as it has lost. That is a recipe for an enduring insurgency and perpetual war.”

On the other hand, Hamas presents the ceasefire as a testament to its resilience. Fifteen months of relentless bombardment and widespread carnage in Gaza only proved that trying to defeat the idea of self-determination meant boosting resistance. Moreover, Hamas was successful in spotlighting international attention and mobilizing global public opinion.

Secondly, political and diplomatic developments would potentially shape the trajectory of the conflict. This includes the role of external diplomacy and international mediation, as Western states are facing growing pressure at home to reassess their policies on the Israel-Palestine issue, the Palestinian political landscape in the sense of struggle for a unified Palestinian leadership vis-à-vis Hamas vs Palestinian Authority, and Israeli internal politics concerning government policies of settlements, political hardliners’ advocacy for military responses and use of force, and growing internal unrest in Israel.

Similarly, military advancement and security dynamics, such as the potential of future escalations, Hamas’ military strategies, and Israel’s military doctrine, can shift the nature of war and also challenge each other differently. For instance, if Hamas shifts towards guerilla or cyber warfare, it could challenge Israel differently, which would most likely continue to contain Hamas from regrouping and building its advancements in Iron Dome and other missile defense systems.

Beyond these political and military optics, the real impact is measured in civilian lives lost and the widespread destruction in Gaza. Though the official death toll in Gaza is stated as 46,000, it might be a sheer underestimate as a peer-reviewed study published by The Lancet, a prestigious international medical journal, crosschecked the death toll with the Ministry of Health and social media obituaries. The study, with a 95% confidence interval, claims that from October 7, 2023, to June 30, 2024, around 64,260 people have been violently killed. This is 41% higher than the official statistics, excluding the period after June 30, 2024, till January 20, 2025, and non-violent deaths like those resulting from disruption and lack of healthcare service and food and hygiene unavailability. Thus, the humanitarian crisis, economic collapse, and reconstruction efforts would largely define the post-ceasefire conflict dynamics.

Moreover, the intensified global debates and mobilized public opinion would continue to pressure shifts in postures, if not policies. The US has been a key ally of Israel and played one of the pivotal roles in facilitating Israel. The current mediation shows that the US always had this space for leverage, which it never utilized until President-elect Donald Trump leveraged it. Though this was primarily an attempt to balance strategic alliance with mounting criticism at home and a toll on the US resources, it resulted in the cessation of hostilities and bloodshed. However, this likely does not signal a policy shift but a tactical move.

In conclusion, while the ceasefire may provide temporary relief, it does little to address the root causes of the ongoing conflict. Both sides remain deeply entrenched in their positions, and the unresolved underlying issues suggest that further escalation is imminent. However, this fragile pause presents a crucial opportunity for Palestinians to rebuild, not only in terms of physical infrastructure but also their sense of dignity and hope for the future.

The writer is associated with Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), Islamabad, and can be reached at anum@ips.net.pk