From Ceasefire to Sustainable Peace: Regional and Global Implications in Gaza-Israel Conflict Resolution

This ceasefire requires an analysis—not merely of the here and now, but of whether this ceasefire can be translated into sustainable peace.

The ceasefire of 18th January 2025 signals the end of a 15-month conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Spearheaded by nations of Qatar, Egypt, and the United States, the agreement has laid out a timetable with objectives of ceasing the hostilities in phases, providing humanitarian assistance, and transitioning to rebuilding. This ceasefire requires an analysis—not merely of the here and now, but of whether this ceasefire can be translated into sustainable peace.

Understanding the Ceasefire’s Framework

The agreement’s phased approach underscores its complexity:

Phase One: A six-week period that will involve 33 Israeli captives to be released by Hamas in exchange for 2,000 Palestinian prisoners. Humanitarian assistance shall be increased; refugees from Gaza will be able to return.

Phase Two: The release of the last batch of hostages and the subsequent evacuation of the Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip.

Phase Three: The reconstruction of Gaza in the long term under international supervision, along with the exchange of the bodies of the deceased captives.

Although the structured phases seem rather elaborate, they are, in fact, full of pitfalls and challenges. These include the breakdown of trust, challenges in executing humanitarian measures, and the reality of the asymmetric power relations between Israel and Hamas.

Immediate Implications for Human Security

From the perspective of human security, the ceasefire affords a brief respite to the people of Gaza who have been affected by the war. It pledges the return of displaced families and increased humanitarian assistance, which is vital for this region that is demonstrating infrastructure failure and significant internal displacement.

However, a subsequent continuation of offensive behavior on the part of Israel after the ceasefire declaration, causing 50 Palestinian casualties, aptly demonstrates the precarious nature of this agreement and its implementation (Huffington Post). Thus, the necessary correspondences to support and maintain a ceasefire should be fortified with strong deterrents regarding accountability to compliance.

Assessing Peacebuilding Potential

The ceasefire aims to help meet the immediate needs; however, it does not meet the structural and systemic level issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A sustainable peacebuilding strategy would require:

Conflict Sensitivity:  Efforts aimed at reconstruction must be conscious of the deep-seated grievances as well as the power imbalance that fuels conflict. There is always a risk of continued cycles of violence without taking into account the root causes of conflict.

Inclusive Dialogue: The exclusion of the main Palestinian groups and actors of the civil society from the negotiation process deprives the ceasefire agreement of acceptance and legitimacy from broader factions of the population.

International Supervision: Independent international players play a significant role in compliance with and monitoring of the agreement to avoid unilateral actions that may be counterproductive and derailing.

The Role of Regional and International Actors

The mediating role played by Qatar, Egypt, and the United States exhibits the importance of global and regional powers in conflict resolution.

Qatar, as a country recognized to have relations with Hamas, served as a mediator. It negotiated for a deal favorable to the Palestinian leadership while at the same time continuing to position itself as an important actor in Middle Eastern diplomacy. Thus, Qatar’s role described how even small states can wield great power given that they act as mediators, especially where more conventional mediation organizations such as the United Nations become hamstrung by political barriers.

Egypt has an important role and involvement in the negotiations between Israel and Palestine due to its geographical contiguity. Egypt, being a neighboring state, had a high interest in the stability of the region and thus mobilized its intelligence and political influence to ensure the start of the negotiations. However, the mediation efforts that are associated with Egypt are usually seen in conflict with its interests, where on one hand it has to maintain its relationship with Israel and on the other has to be concerned about the repercussions of extremism from Gaza in its own country.

The United States plays a great role as an ally of Israel to support the process of ceasefire and to have international recognition and legitimacy. The U.S. in this case pressured Israel into negotiations while at the same time assuring Hamas of phased negotiations regarding the prisoners’ exchange rate and phased delivery of humanitarian aid. However, Washington’s neutrality has often been doubtful since it has been historically aligned to Israel, hence the necessity for a more diverse coalition of mediation for a balanced outcome.

The rest of the international community, the European Union and the United Nations particularly, has a much bigger role to play in the implementation of the agreement and the meeting of long-term reconstruction requirements. Such actors can potentially provide technical knowledge, financial resources, and oversee mechanisms as a way of promoting transparency and accountability.

Furthermore, the Arab League may have an important role to play in mobilizing support in the region to support the agreement, because common pan-Arab concerns about Palestinian self-determination enhance the reliability of the guarantors.

Challenges to Long-Term Peace

Structural Inequalities: The ceasefire agreement does not speak about the issue of the blockade on Gaza by Israelis or the general occupation situations that are bound to keep resulting in suffering of the Palestinians.

Resilience of Violent Actors: While the prisoner exchange is undoubtedly a confidence-building measure, it’s important that it not be seen as a swap—essentially a transactional approach as opposed to a move towards rapprochement.

Humanitarian Dependency: There is a danger that relying on international aid, in the absence of focused efforts towards revitalizing local governance and economic capabilities, can perpetrate a state of vulnerability and keep such states dependent.

A Path Forward

However, for this ceasefire to turn into sustainable peace, this cessation of violence must slowly transform into a process of conflict transformation. This requires:

Integrated Peacebuilding: Humanitarian relief integrating with developmental and peace objectives to prevent and mitigate the root causes of conflict.

Enhanced Accountability: Setting up independent entities and processes to investigate incidents of violations of the ceasefire.

Empowering Local Voices: Involving marginalized communities and actors at the grassroots level in the process of reestablishing peace ensures legitimacy and inclusivity.

Conclusion

The ceasefire between Gaza and Israel is a brief flashpoint in the cycle of bloodshed to embark upon a future of lasting peace. But sadly enough, history proves that ceasefires are not enough. Agreements without catering to the root causes of conflict—from systemic inequalities to exclusion—are temporary holds in a state of perpetual conflict. It is time to speak in defense of transformative approaches that place human security, resilience, and justice at the forefront. Only then can the promise of peace transcend the fragility of ceasefires.

Adan Mirza
Adan Mirza
Adan Mirza is a doctoral candidate of Peace and Conflict Studies at the Centre for International Peace and Stability (CIPS), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad. Her research aims to promote human security in conflict-affected regions. With an academic background in Economics, Finance, Public Policy, and Peace and Conflict Studies, Adan brings a multidisciplinary perspective to issues of sustainable peace, resilience, and conflict resolution.