The announcement of a ceasefire in Gaza marks a milestone as the world beholds the advent of a frail truce following fifteen months of relentless genocide. MAHMOOD SANGLAY examines this development in light of the unyielding spirit of the Palestinians who resist one of the most brutal onslaughts of modern times.
The ceasefire, reached on January 15, was brokered by international mediators, including Qatar and Egypt, and marked the culmination of months of delayed negotiations. Central to the agreement is the release of hostages and prisoners, along with the phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from northern Gaza. Notably, this deal mirrors proposals made as far back as May 2024 but was persistently rejected by Netanyahu, whose motivations were tied more to political survival than genuine peace efforts.
In the interim, Gaza bore the brunt of genocidal warfare. Tens of thousands were killed, and 90% of its northern homes were destroyed. The northern Gaza Strip, once a bustling area, is now a wasteland of rubble. Despite these harrowing conditions, Hamas and the broader Palestinian resistance held firm, forcing Israel to retreat and relinquish ambitions of permanent displacement.
The agreement also provides for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, many of whom have been detained without trial. This exchange symbolises a broader victory for the Palestinian cause, as it acknowledges their sacrifices and affirms their struggle for freedom. Additionally, the terms include humanitarian aid provisions, an essential step to alleviate Gaza’s dire conditions.
This ceasefire exposes the failure of Israel’s objectives. Its military incursion aimed to destroy Hamas and completely displace all Palestinians from Gaza. Yet, it achieved none of these goals. The Israeli army, demoralised and suffering significant casualties, was compelled to retreat. Netanyahu’s government is now fractured, with coalition allies expressing outrage over what they perceive as a humiliating defeat.
The scale of Israel’s losses, both military and political, has been staggering. Beit Hanoun became a symbol of resistance, where Hamas inflicted heavy casualties on Israeli forces. This exposed the vulnerabilities of an army that, despite its superior resources, was outmatched by the resilience and determination of the Palestinian fighters.
Furthermore, Israel’s actions have eroded its global standing. Its apartheid policies and war crimes are increasingly recognised, even in western media. Editor of Middle Est Eye, David Hearst, points out that Netanyahu’s extreme measures, including the destruction of northern Gaza and plans for forced displacement, were condemned even by some within his own administration as ethnic cleansing. These actions, aimed at securing permanent control, have instead exposed the futility and moral bankruptcy of Israel’s strategies.
Dutch-Palestinian Middle East analyst, Mouin Rabbani, underscores the significance of this moment, saying ‘Even a temporary cessation of hostilities is a monumental achievement for Gaza, given the apocalyptic circumstances it has endured. Yet, the phased nature of the ceasefire leaves much to be negotiated, and Netanyahu’s coalition’s resistance to any terms that imply Palestinian endurance underscores the fragility of this deal.’
This moment calls for a unified global effort to support Gaza’s recovery. The world must ensure immediate humanitarian aid and long-term reconstruction while also addressing the systemic injustices that perpetuate such conflicts. The international community’s failure to act decisively earlier is a stain on its conscience, one that must be rectified by sustained advocacy for Palestinian sovereignty and justice.
While the ceasefire is a victory for Gaza, it is also a moment to scrutinise the role of external mediators. Qatar and Egypt played pivotal roles in brokering the agreement. However, their motivations were not purely altruistic. Qatar’s interventions, while significant in facilitating negotiations, often reflect its broader geopolitical ambitions. By positioning itself as a mediator, Qatar seeks to amplify its regional influence and align itself with western powers, even as it suppresses dissent and curtails freedoms domestically. This duality in Qatar’s approach is evidence of an expedient, rather than principled, approach to justice.
Similarly, Egypt’s role in the ceasefire is marred by its vested interests. As the gatekeeper of the Rafah crossing, Egypt has long wielded control over Gaza’s access to essential goods and services, using this leverage to assert its dominance in regional politics. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s regime, known for its brutal authoritarianism and human rights abuses, has manipulated Gaza’s plight to bolster its international standing while suppressing domestic opposition. The selective opening of the Rafah crossing during the ceasefire negotiations underscores Egypt’s strategic calculus rather than a genuine humanitarian concern.
Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst, offered a piercing critique of Israel’s approach. He argued, ‘Netanyahu’s theatrics underscore his government’s bad faith. By adding new conditions and delaying implementation, Israel reveals its intent to undermine progress rather than commit to peace. In contrast, Gaza’s leadership has every reason to pursue the ceasefire faithfully, as it represents a pathway to survival, reconstruction, and dignity.’
Gaza’s resilience conveys a universal message of hope for the oppressed. The people of Gaza have reminded the world of the power of steadfastness and faith. Their triumph, achieved through immense sacrifice, is a beacon of hope for all oppressed communities fighting for their dignity and rights.
However, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza demands sustained global attention. Reconstruction efforts must be accompanied by measures to hold Israel and its allies accountable.
