Israel violated its fragile, days-old ceasefire agreement with Hamas on Tuesday by killing six Palestinians in Gaza City and another near Khan Yunis, as reported by Middle East Eye. At least five of the six victims in Gaza City were killed by an aerial attack while inspecting the ruins of their destroyed homes, as described by local Palestinian Civil Defence personnel. The seventh was the victim of a separate drone strike in al-Fukhari, east of Khan Yunis.
Israel’s actions are in clear violation of the October 10 ceasefire agreement, which requires “All military operations, including aerial and artillery bombardment and targeting operations [to] be suspended.”
A shaky ceasefire is better than an ongoing genocide. The release of the remaining Israeli hostages should be celebrated, along with the freedom for nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and detainees—most of whom have been held without charge. And it is a huge step forward that food and medical supplies will now be allowed into Gaza to aid the starved and suffering Palestinian population.
But Israel has already flouted some aspects of the ceasefire agreement. It has failed to allow the amount of humanitarian assistance promised in the ceasefire agreement into Gaza, and announced on Tuesday that it would halve the number of aid trucks being let in down to 300 per day, saying that Hamas not returning the bodies of its deceased hostages quickly enough—though many of these hostages’ remains may be buried under the rubble of buildings bombed by Israel over the course of the two-year-long war. And it continues to bar international media from entering Gaza to report from the ground. So while the first phase of the ceasefire plan seemed likely to be successful, the subsequent parts remain in question.
Let’s remember that the first phase of the ceasefire agreement in January had been fully implemented when Israel—with the support of the U.S. government—resumed the war two months later. This could happen again in the case of this month’s agreement. Whether Israel actually withdraws from the occupied Gaza Strip and upholds the ceasefire remains in question so long as the Trump Administration and U.S. Congressional leadership of both parties refuse to condition military aid to Israel or allow the U.N. Security Council to enforce its resolutions.
To make matters worse, Hamas’s delay in releasing the remains of deceased Israeli hostages leaves it with even less leverage in enforcing the terms of the agreement, and Israel is taking advantage of that.
Israel has been noncommittal regarding the full timetable and the extent of the withdrawal thus far. It has also violated its withdrawal agreements in Lebanon and continued its occupation of southern Syria in recent months without objections from the United States, raising questions as to whether Israel will follow through on these commitments.
Among the outstanding issues is Israel’s demand for Hamas’s disarmament. Many Palestinians in Gaza have long resented their unelected militia’s intimidation and violence, and its terrorism and other provocations that have brought misery upon the Palestinian population. At the same time, Hamas has often been the only force capable of maintaining order, as armed gangs—some backed by Israel—have been stealing relief supplies and wreaking havoc in the region. This, in turn, has led to Hamas militia engaging in attacks on its political opponents, including summary executions. Without clearer guarantees from Israel regarding a full withdrawal of its troops from Gaza, a permanent ceasefire, and the establishment of a credible Palestinian administration to maintain order, Hamas will continue to refuse to disarm.
As of now, it is unclear who will rule over what remains of the Gaza Strip in the event of Israel’s withdrawal from the area. While Hamas has agreed to step aside under these circumstances, Israel, with U.S. support, has ruled out allowing the Palestinian Authority (PA), which is recognized by 157 nations as the government of the State of Palestine, to govern Gaza. While the PA is riddled with corruption and dysfunction, it is arguably the most likely entity to provide some level of stability in the region: It has decades of experience governing most urban areas of the West Bank, has recognized Israel’s statehood, is demanding a Palestinian state on only 22 percent of historic Palestine, and has long renounced the use of violence.
But while the ceasefire agreement calls for the creation of a technocratic Palestinian administration overseen by a “Board of Peace,” the board would be chaired by Donald Trump—who has advocated turning the Gaza Strip into a vast Mediterranean resort—with the involvement of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a key architect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Given the history of British colonialism and American neocolonialism in the Middle East, the agreement’s insistence that Palestinians in Gaza live under the control of foreigners in Washington and London, rather than their recognized government in the administrative capital of Ramallah, is not likely to be acceptable to them indefinitely.
What’s more, the costs of reconstruction in Gaza will be astronomical given that nearly 80 percent of structures in the Gaza Strip had been fully or partly destroyed. And it’s unlikely that the Gulf States will be willing to finance the removal of debris and mass reconstruction so long as there is still a possibility of the war resuming.
And while it should be seen as something of a victory that Trump is no longer talking about razing the entire territory and expelling the population, as he proposed earlier this year, the tragic fact is that he could have stopped the war months ago—and President Joe Biden could have, as well. Indeed, Biden put forward a remarkably similar ceasefire proposal in May 2024, which was accepted by Hamas but rejected by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. While previous Presidents—including Dwight D. Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan—were willing to pressure Israel to halt military offensives and/or withdraw from occupied territories by threatening to withhold military aid, Biden refused to adequately utilize his substantial leverage during his presidency.
Similarly, Israeli mediator Gershon Baskin notes that Hamas had agreed to the same terms back in September of last year, and that, as with the current agreement, Netanyahu initially refused to support it. All that was needed to make the agreement a reality was some pressure from the Biden Administration against Netanyahu. Last week, Baskin wrote on X that he “met with members of the American negotiating team in October 2024 and they were as frustrated as I was in their inability to convince Biden and Biden’s people to look seriously at the deal on the table.”
What finally led Trump to force Netanyahu to agree? One reason appears to have been that Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Egypt—who have long worked to convince Hamas to accept concessions demanded by Israel—pressured Trump to get Israel to compromise as well. Israel’s bombing of Qatar less than a week ago, and the apparent unwillingness by Trump to attempt to stop it, raised the possibility that continued U.S. support for Israel could threaten his close strategic, financial, and personal relationships with the Gulf monarchies.
Another factor was the resistance of Israelis themselves. In August, a group of Israelis numbering into the hundreds of thousands, including ordinary citizens as well as leading military and security officials, gathered in the streets to protest the ongoing war, signaling widespread recognition that continuing the war would have little strategic value and put the lives of the hostages and Israeli soldiers at further risk.
There has also been growing awareness of the international implications of prolonging the war. Over the course of its two-year genocidal campaign in Gaza, Israel has squandered the international outpouring of sympathy following the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas and become an international pariah. Many European countries have now suspended military aid to Israel, and have recently threatened to impose economic sanctions as well.
And much of this pressure and resulting agreement was made possible by the power of global civil society, with massive antiwar demonstrations in cities and universities around the world, as well as the Global Sumud Flotilla, whose members were intercepted by Israel at the beginning of this month and subjected to abuse and torture. Much to the horror of many Israeli citizens, these events have led people around the world to not only challenge Israel’s war and occupation, but to begin questioning the legitimacy of Zionism entirely.
No plan will lead to a real and permanent peace between Israelis and Palestinians unless it is premised on equal rights for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs, either in a viable two-state solution or a single binational state with guaranteed equal rights for both. Unfortunately, the United States has been hopelessly biased towards Israel while leading the “peace process”; the United States has used its veto powers to prevent the United Nations from enforcing its resolutions and Washington refuses to condition military aid to Israel to force it to end its occupation and colonization of Palestinian territory. In light of this, while the United States may have taken the lead in making this ceasefire possible, it will be up to global civil society and other governments to take the lead in demanding a fair, just, and lasting peace.