The end of Gaza

Listen to the article. The audio text is automated, generated by an automated system

One year after the Trump administration concluded an agreement to end the war in Gaza, Palestinians are still waiting for the dawn of “the next day.” The ceasefire plan concluded in October 2025 led to the liberation of the last Israeli hostages, and ostensibly put an end to hostilities, but Israel never stopped launching raids on targets in Gaza, often resulting in the death of civilians, including about 300 children during the past year. The agreement stipulated the implementation of a gradual political process that was supposed to help in the reconstruction of the devastated Strip.

Jared Kushner, US President Donald Trump's son-in-law and responsible for Middle East affairs, promised in January of this year that the process of rehabilitating basic services and infrastructure - including water and sewage networks, electricity networks, hospitals, and bakeries - would begin within 100 days. However, nine months have passed without Gaza witnessing any reconstruction, restoration of basic services, or even an end to the cycle of daily violence. Instead, the vast majority of its population remains crammed into sprawling, filthy tent cities along a thin, ever-shrinking coastline, plagued by disease and rodent infestations, and facing severe shortages of food, medicine, clean water and access to basic sanitation.

It is true that famine is not ravaging the population of Gaza as in previous years, but the humanitarian situation is still catastrophic, and it is a situation that cannot last. It is very likely that these intolerable conditions will lead to a new wave of violence, and they pave the way for the ultimate outcome desired by many Israeli leaders: the final displacement of more than two million Palestinian residents of Gaza from the Strip.

Indeed, the current situation seems to suit the Israeli leadership. In a recent interview, Nikolai Mladenov, the Bulgarian diplomat who serves as the highest representative of the peace council formed by Trump to oversee the Gaza peace plan, revealed the main obstacle preventing progress. Mladenov cautiously noted that Israel's commitments are "the point at which we find ourselves a little stuck at the moment," and Kushner blamed the "crazy elections" that will be held in Israel later this month, saying they have made Netanyahu's government "a little irrational" regarding Gaza.

Although electoral considerations are undoubtedly an influential factor, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is engaged in an intense, even fateful, re-election campaign, the overall Israeli statements and actions indicate something deeper and more troubling: Ultimately, the Netanyahu government's strategy is not so much about stabilizing Gaza or even disarming Hamas, but rather about making the area uninhabitable and expelling its residents from it.

Whether the Trump administration is a partner in this goal or not, the exceptional consideration it gives to the far-right Netanyahu government, and its general indifference to the plight of the Palestinians, contribute to pushing things towards this very result. Unless the United States and its allies and partners are prepared to force Israel to abide by its commitments, it may only be a matter of time before Gaza is lost forever.

The death, destruction and tragedies that Gaza and its population of approximately 2.2 million people have endured over the past three years are an ordeal that cannot be described. Following the terrorist attack launched by Hamas on Israel on October 7, 2023, Israeli military and political leaders vowed to “raze” Gaza to the ground and turn it into a “tent city,” vowing that Gaza would “never return to what it was.” They carried out their promise. It dropped over Gaza 223,000 tons of explosives - its power is almost equivalent to the power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima 15 times - killing more than 74,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, and turning the largest part of Gaza into rubble. The Israeli attack, for which Israel is currently on trial for genocide before the International Court of Justice, destroyed about 92 percent of Gaza's housing, 95 percent of its agricultural land, all 12 of its universities, and nearly half of its 36 hospitals - in other words, the institutions and infrastructure needed to ensure the continuation of life.

After all this devastation, last year's ceasefire was of course a relief. Within the framework of the first phase of the plan drawn up by Trump for Gaza, the two parties agreed to immediately stop all military attacks, exchange hostages and prisoners, restore basic services, and significantly increase humanitarian aid. However, if we exclude Hamas’s release of the Israeli hostages, most of these commitments were only partially implemented.

The second phase, which was officially launched in January although Israel had not yet fulfilled its obligations stipulated in the first phase, assumes stabilization in Gaza through the deployment of an international force and the establishment of a technocratic Palestinian governing body, known as the “National Committee for the Administration of Gaza,” along with the gradual disarmament of Hamas and the gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces. Together, these latest steps constitute the preconditions for the long-term reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, as set out in Phase Three.

A full year after declaring a ceasefire, Israel continues to deny entry to Palestinian bodies responsible for governance and policing, which would allow Hamas to relinquish power and begin the reconstruction process. Hamas and Israel are still at loggerheads regarding the movement's disarmament and Israeli withdrawal schedule. Despite the improvement in the food situation since the famine that Gaza witnessed last year, Israel continues to restrict humanitarian aid, allowing the entry of only a small portion of the daily shipments required under the ceasefire agreement, which amount to 600 trucks. On the other hand, more than 90 percent of Gaza's population are displaced within the Strip.

Moreover, since the ceasefire, the Israeli army has unilaterally expanded its control over half or slightly more of Gaza's territory, to about 65 percent, and Israel's repeated air strikes have claimed the lives of more than 1,400 Palestinians since the ceasefire was announced. The continuing high death toll during the ceasefire period is evidence of the grim reality that has become the new normal in Gaza. As UN Middle East envoy Sigrid Kaag said, “Living conditions in Gaza are like hell on earth with no tangible change in sight.”

Israel is not alone responsible for the continuing hellish conditions in Gaza. Hamas also bears part of the responsibility. The Hamas leadership spent many months stubbornly resisting the disarmament demands stipulated in the Trump plan, and in the end agreed to this only under intense pressure from Egypt and other mediators, and the Trump administration bears a large part of the responsibility. It has allowed the political process to falter, and it gives Israel a huge free hand, in addition to being extremely biased in its implementation of the terms of the ceasefire. It effectively allowed Israel to continue its war in Gaza, albeit on a smaller scale.

Just a few months ago, it seemed that the stalemate had finally broken. In late July, Trump announced significant progress in implementing the second phase of his plan for Gaza. After seven months of arduous and fraught negotiations, Hamas and the Peace Council reached an agreement regarding the disarmament of the Palestinian armed group, paving the way, at least in theory, for the start of urgent relief and reconstruction work, as well as the entry of new Palestinian government and police apparatuses. The success of the plan depended on the implementation of a carefully planned series of events: Hamas was to disarm in parallel with the Israeli military withdrawal, a plan designed to ensure progress and prevent either side from disrupting the process.

The Hamas movement, which was based on the principle of armed resistance, agreeing to any form of disarmament was unprecedented, and Trump was right to praise this as a “historic” achievement. However, Netanyahu flatly rejected this road map, insisting that Israel could not withdraw unless Hamas was completely disarmed, and that Israel remained free to continue its military operations in Gaza. In other words, Israel insists that Hamas fulfill all of its obligations in the second phase even before Israel fulfills any of its obligations in the first phase, a position that makes the plan unworkable.

The process has stalled again. In light of the lack of any progress on either the disarmament of Hamas or Israel's withdrawal, the Palestinian Governing Committee (currently located in Cairo) and the police forces cannot enter Gaza, nor can any international force enter it. The Trump administration and the Peace Council have been trying to evade the sequence of events since the summer - publicly supporting the Israeli position that Hamas must be completely disarmed first, while privately assuring Hamas and other parties that the roadmap had not changed, but lack of clarity usually favors the stronger party, so this hesitation on Washington's part was more like an explicit endorsement of the Israeli position. After the Trump administration effectively exempted Israel from most of its obligations in the first phase by refusing to condemn the ceasefire violations committed by Israel on an almost daily basis, it now effectively exempts it from its obligations in the second phase as well. The reconstruction and rehabilitation of Gaza remains suspended indefinitely.

In an interview last September, Mladenov accurately explained the dangers of the current impasse. He warned that the absence of any tangible progress in Gaza destroys the future of this sector and the possibility of reaching a two-state solution, with dire consequences for the entire region. "If we allow the current situation in Gaza to continue, Gaza will be lost. It will be gone forever," Mladenov warned. He continued, saying, "If the international community does not focus on the situation in Gaza, where two million Palestinians live in horrific conditions, we will not be able to return to a reliable path to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue." At the same time, “we are sowing the seeds of the next security and military crisis that will soon emerge.”

However, what Mladenov did not mention is that Netanyahu is completely satisfied with the process remaining stuck in this way. The Israeli Prime Minister - who reluctantly accepted Trump's proposed 2025 Gaza ceasefire - succeeded in continuing the war in Gaza without incurring great cost. The ongoing military operations and humanitarian crisis in Gaza do not arouse any real discontent in Israel, while even Netanyahu's main election rivals felt obligated to reject the US-backed road map on Gaza. At the same time, international outrage over the carnage in Gaza has largely subsided, with many countries preferring a faltering peace process to no peace process at all.

For Netanyahu, sustained violence at this level — enough to prevent Gaza from achieving meaningful recovery and reconstruction, but still below the level that would cause major international uproar — has become an end in itself. Just as he insisted on the unreasonable goal of “total victory” during the first two years of the war, he now insists on the equally unachievable goal of “the complete disarmament of Hamas.” It is possible that Hamas will give up its rockets, shells, mortars and other heavy weapons, but it is unrealistic to imagine the movement handing over every rifle or pistol it has, especially with the continued operations of Israeli forces inside the Strip. Netanyahu's hardline stance helps calm his extremist partners in the ruling coalition, justify permanent Israeli military control of Gaza, and frustrate any political settlement with the Palestinians indefinitely.

The status quo seems to suit the Israeli leadership

Most importantly, keeping Gaza in a state of political, military and humanitarian uncertainty - without a real ceasefire or a return to all-out war, with limited relief provided in the short term and no long-term reconstruction, while the population is preoccupied with the demands of survival and losing any real hope for the future - is a state that is in the interest of achieving the broader vision embraced by many hard-line Israelis: making Gaza uninhabitable to the point that its residents are forced to leave it. Netanyahu and his far-right government do not consider the impoverishment of Gaza a secondary matter, but rather a fundamental element of Israel's strategy. Israeli leaders, including Defense Minister Yisrael Katz, have pledged to remain in Gaza indefinitely and not withdraw from it. Even more striking is that in the two-thirds of Gaza now under direct Israeli control, the Israeli army has eliminated virtually all traces of Palestinian life, systematically destroying thousands of buildings and leveling entire neighborhoods and farmland, while erecting military bases and other permanent structures.

Members of Netanyahu's government have made no secret of their desire to displace the population of Gaza and eventually allow settlements for Israeli Jews in that area. Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir, who is considered one of the most prominent and famous voices calling for the expulsion of the Palestinians, recently revealed a seven-year plan aimed at the “voluntary migration” of Palestinians from Gaza, and among its provisions is the transfer of 250,000 Palestinians out of Gaza in the first year. Ben Gvir is not the only member of the government who says openly what was said in secret. Katz called for facilitating the migration of Gazans “by any means possible,” adding that “there is no real solution for Gaza in the end without this migration.” Netanyahu himself has called for this, as he confirmed in a private session with a group of lawmakers in 2025 that Israel is “destroying an increasing number of homes” in Gaza so that “the Palestinians will have nowhere to return to.” Netanyahu commented, "The only clear outcome will be that Gazans will choose to emigrate from the Strip." The Trump administration, for its part, may not mind such an outcome.

In January 2025, Trump proposed that the United States “take control” of Gaza and “purge” it of its population of more than two million, as part of an ill-considered vision of turning depopulated Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East.” Although Trump backed down from the idea in the wake of massive international outcry, the administration's lenient stance toward Israeli violations indicates that it is willing to overlook continued Palestinian suffering.

Gaza's continued suffering will have horrific consequences. As Mladenov warned, continuing on the current path is likely to have two outcomes: pushing increasing numbers of Palestinians to leave the Gaza Strip, and increasing the likelihood of escalation of violence, including a return to full-scale war. In both cases, the Palestinians in Gaza will once again bear the brunt of the cost of this situation, although other parties will also pay the price, as instability increases in the region as a whole, and the international standing of Israel and the United States deteriorates further.

With no tangible improvement in living conditions in Gaza and deadly Israeli attacks continuing, the potential for violent conflict is increasing. Hamas, which has suffered heavy losses without being completely eliminated, has so far shown a relative degree of restraint and a willingness to withstand repeated blows, including a series of assassinations of its members and regular Israeli air strikes, but the movement's pragmatic approach is unlikely to continue forever.

Netanyahu, who believes that keeping Israel in a state of perpetual war will keep him in power, may welcome the opportunity to launch what is in effect an eternal war in Gaza. However, a prolonged occupation of Gaza is unlikely to achieve tangible military gains. Rather, it will drain Israeli resources and weaken morale, deepening Israel's international isolation and eliminating the possibility of normalizing relations with more Arab countries. At the same time, the prospect of a mass exodus of Palestinians from Gaza may fuel the illusions of some in Israel who aspire to a “Greater Israel,” but it will also reinforce Israel's position as a pariah state and condemn Israelis and Palestinians to further decades of conflict.

As for the United States, continued violence and the turning of the peace process into an increasing farce may undermine one of Trump's few tangible foreign policy achievements and keep the region captive to endless turmoil. With the war with Iran making the United States appear to be an unreliable force, and pushing its regional allies to search for alternatives to its collapsing security umbrella, the failure in Gaza will consolidate America’s image as a superpower that has lost its luster and is no longer what it was.

There is no doubt that Trump’s plan regarding Gaza and the mechanisms he established to supervise it, including the “Peace Council,” suffer from a major flaw. They have designed this process in a way that is strongly biased in favor of Israel. It assumes no accountability for past (and ongoing) atrocities, deprives the Palestinians of their right to self-determination, and is in conflict with international law for many reasons, including bypassing the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. But in the absence of a more serious and equitable peace process, the current road map for Gaza offers the greatest opportunity to provide the relief and recovery that the stricken population of the Strip desperately needs, provided it is implemented fairly.

If we assume that the Trump administration sincerely supports the plan and wants to achieve it, we still have a way out of the current impasse. The United States and its partners must take three actions. The first is to acknowledge that Israel's desires in Gaza differ from those embraced by the Trump administration and the broader international community, and even directly contradict them on several levels. While the latter focuses on establishing long-term stability in Gaza and rebuilding the Strip, the former seems determined to thwart any possibility for the Palestinians to continue living in those lands. Second, processes to improve the daily lives of ordinary people in Gaza must be differentiated, or completely separated, from the political process. The safety and dignity of more than two million civilians cannot remain hostage to the decisions of Hamas, not to mention the machinations of Israeli internal politics. The well-being of Palestinians should not be a bargaining chip used by Israel, or even the Peace Council, to extract political or military concessions from Hamas.

Finally, the United States and other mediators must ensure that both parties adhere to their obligations under the October 2025 ceasefire agreement, and must be prepared to take punitive measures in the event of non-compliance. This includes stopping armed attacks from both sides, allowing massive amounts of humanitarian aid to flow unconditionally, restoring basic services, removing rubble, and helping to revive local livelihoods, as stipulated in the first phase of the Trump plan.

Likewise, the disarmament of Hamas, the Israeli withdrawal, the formation of a new administration in Gaza, and the reconstruction of the Strip are not separate issues, but rather parallel. They must be pursued in parallel, in accordance with what was stated in the original road map of the Peace Council, for the process to succeed. Ultimately, for any of this to be achieved, the United States and the Peace Council must pressure Israel to allow Palestinian technocrats and newly trained Palestinian police forces into Gaza as soon as possible.

These measures will be difficult to convince Washington, especially given the close proximity between Trump and Netanyahu and the latter's commitment to his extremist coalition partners, but they are inevitable, regardless of the outcome of the October elections in Israel. Although many observers expect that if Netanyahu wins, this will give him room to move forward with implementing Trump's plan for Gaza and the road map, the evidence that has emerged over the past three years and the nature of the current government indicates that he will not do so. It is likely that any extremist coalition headed by Netanyahu, if it obtains a new term, will spend the next four years working to complete the destruction of Palestinian lives in Gaza, not to mention the West Bank, where Israel continues to effectively annex lands at an insane pace.

Trump would do well to think about whether sacrificing the Gaza peace plan, on which he staked a great deal politically, for the sake of an Israeli government that may be on its way to extinction, is logical. The repercussions resulting from the destruction of Gaza and the suffering of its residents will remain felt for generations to come. Only Israel and its main supporter in the White House are able to decide whether the coming years will be a period of reconstruction and healing of wounds or a period of permanent violence and instability.

Quoted from “Independent” Arabia.