A peace plan without clearly identified parties is not an agreement.

QUICK READ

• Not a real peace agreement
  The Gaza ceasefire framework lacks clear signatories, legal grounding, enforcement mechanisms, and dispute-resolution bodies. It functions more as a declaration shaped by power than a negotiated, binding agreement.
  
  

• Built-in Israeli discretion
  Israeli withdrawal is neither time-bound nor objectively defined. Security benchmarks are interpreted unilaterally, giving Israel an effective veto and allowing indefinite delay—repeating the structural failure of the Oslo Accords.
  
  

• Humanitarian imbalance continues
  Despite the ceasefire, Gaza faces famine, restricted aid, and continued territorial control. Israel retains around 58% of Gaza, including most arable land, deepening Palestinian dependence rather than enabling recovery.
  
  

• Internal contradictions undermine credibility
  The plan claims no forced displacement, yet requires Hamas members to leave Gaza. It calls for peaceful coexistence while demanding unilateral Palestinian disarmament under overwhelming Israeli military dominance.
  
  

• From liberation to managed stability
  The framework replaces political reconciliation with elite-driven “stability” and economic redevelopment. Palestinian liberation is sidelined in favour of managed modernisation, making the ceasefire fragile and unlikely to hold.

For more read the full article ..... 

NOVEMBER 2025

The announcement of a ceasefire in Gaza, accompanied by what has been publicised as a Trump-backed framework for lasting peace, initially appears to offer a pause in one of the world’s most devastating conflicts.

Yet, under scrutiny, this so-called peace plan collapses.

“Rather than reducing conflict, the framework institutionalises imbalance.

It is neither a negotiated agreement nor a credible roadmap to resolution.

Instead, it functions as a loosely articulated platform of ambiguities, resting overwhelmingly on one presumption: unchecked Israeli discretion.

Rather than reducing conflict, the framework institutionalises imbalance.

Its silences are as revealing as its stated principles, and its design echoes the structural failures of earlier initiatives most notably the Oslo Accords while amplifying their biases.

An Agreement Without Parties, Law, or Interpretation

A foundational flaw of the plan lies in its lack of clarity over signatories and stakeholders.

It is unclear who, beyond Israel and the United States, is formally bound by this framework. Regional actors such as Qatar, Turkey, and Egypt are mentioned in public discourse, yet their roles remain undefined.

A peace plan without clearly identified parties is not an agreement; it is a declaration of intent shaped by power asymmetry.

Equally troubling is the absence of any mechanism for appointing Gaza’s proposed technocratic administration.

Reports suggesting the involvement of figures such as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, widely viewed across the region as politically compromised raise further questions.

By what authority would such administrators be appointed? Who legitimises them, and to whom would they be accountable?

This institutional vacuum is compounded by the lack of a legal framework.

The plan makes no reference to international law, United Nations oversight, or established conflict-resolution norms.

In conflicts of this scale, legal anchoring is not optional it is essential. Yet the 20-point programme offers none.

“The plan makes no reference to international law….

Most strikingly, there is no interpretive or dispute-resolution body.

This omission is fatal. Any ceasefire implemented in a live conflict zone will inevitably generate disputes over compliance, sequencing, and intent. Without an agreed arbiter, interpretation defaults to power.

In this case, that power lies decisively with Israel and its allies.

Enforcement Without Reciprocity

The plan’s enforcement architecture is effectively non-existent. There are no measurable benchmarks, no independent verification mechanisms, and no penalties for non-compliance.

This mirrors the Oslo Accords, which collapsed in large part because they relied on goodwill rather than enforceable obligations.

Crucially, there are no reciprocal guarantees constraining Israeli discretion.

While Palestinian obligations disarmament, compliance, political restructuring are specified, Israeli commitments remain conditional and open-ended.

“This effectively grants Israel a veto over its own withdrawal.

This imbalance transforms the ceasefire from a mutual truce into a managed submission.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the question of withdrawal.

Israel currently retains control over approximately 58% of the Gaza Strip, much of it agriculturally viable land. Yet the plan offers no time-bound withdrawal schedule, no objective criteria, and no independent certification of compliance.

Article 16 of the framework states that withdrawal will depend on “milestones” linked to demilitarisation, as agreed by Israel, a transitional security force, and the United States.

This effectively grants Israel a veto over its own withdrawal.

Security concerns defined unilaterally can indefinitely delay disengagement. The lesson of Oslo is being repeated: ambiguity weaponised as policy.

Human Cost and Structural Dependency

According to United Nations assessments, over 62,000 Palestinians have been killed, more than 160,000 injured, and Gaza is facing famine. Israeli control over arable land has rendered Gazans dependent on food imports and foreign aid, shifting power from survival to regulation.

The consequences of this imbalance are already visible.

Aid itself has become a tool of control.

While the ceasefire promised the entry of over 600 aid trucks per day, fewer than half are now permitted. Fuel, medicine, and food remain scarce, and northern Gaza is largely inaccessible.

“Aid itself has become a tool of control.

NGOs attempting to operate, face new Israeli registration requirements that effectively paralyse humanitarian work. This is not relief it is an economy of dependence curated through regulation.

Prisoners, Displacement, and Internal Contradictions

The asymmetry extends to prisoner exchanges. Israel holds over 10,000 Palestinian detainees, many under administrative detention a system that allows imprisonment without charge or trial, including of women and children.

In contrast, the ceasefire provides for the release of only a fraction of these prisoners, many of whom have been incarcerated since the 1990s. This is not reconciliation; it is selective mercy within a system of prolonged coercion.

The plan’s internal contradictions are stark.

It declares that no one should be forced to leave Gaza yet simultaneously demands that Hamas members exit the territory to destinations of their choosing.

“The plan’s internal contradictions are stark.

Forced displacement is rejected in principle, then enforced in practice. Peaceful coexistence is invoked alongside unilateral disarmament.

The underlying logic is unmistakable: peace is conditional upon Palestinian surrender, not mutual consent. Hamas is required to relinquish its weapons entirely, while Israel retains overwhelming military superiority, including advanced weaponry capable of mass civilian harm.

This is not demilitarisation; it is enforced asymmetry.

From Liberation to Managed Modernisation

Beyond security, the plan gestures toward a new political and economic order for Gaza, one centred on stability, commerce, and elite-driven modernisation.

The vision of a “Riviera-style” redevelopment reduces Gaza from a site of political struggle to a real-estate project.

In this process, the ideological currents that once animated the region Arab nationalism, political Islam, and the moral politics of Palestinian liberation are quietly buried under rubble and reconstruction rhetoric.

This is not merely Hamas’s marginalisation; it is the political disqualification of a broader set of actors deemed disruptive to a new doctrine of “stability first”.

This doctrine reflects post-Arab Spring anxieties among regional monarchies and militarised republics, which increasingly conflate political Islam with insurgency.

The narrative has shifted decisively from liberation to management, from rights to order.

The Politics of Recognition and the Persistence of Occupation

A parallel political manoeuvre has unfolded around the recognition of a Palestinian state by over 150 countries. While symbolically significant, this recognition risks redefining the problem rather than resolving it.

By assigning boundaries to a notional Palestinian state, the original mandate-era occupation is obscured, even as settlements and control persist.

Recognition from afar may offer diplomatic affirmation, but whether it translates into material liberation for Gazans remains uncertain.

What is clear is that occupation is being reframed rather than dismantled.

A Ceasefire Unlikely to Hold

As violence continues even during the ceasefire the absence of hostage exchanges, the restriction of aid, and ongoing civilian casualties underscore the fragility of this arrangement.

More than 100 Gazans were reportedly killed in recent strikes, reinforcing the sense that the ceasefire functions selectively.

This is not a truce built on equality, nor a peace rooted in justice.

“Peace cannot be imposed through imbalance; it must be negotiated through parity.

It is a one-sided arrangement that excludes genuine non-violent political actors, relies on coercion rather than consent, and substitutes ambiguity for accountability.

History suggests such frameworks do not endure. Without enforceable equality, credible guarantees, and inclusive political participation, this ceasefire is unlikely to hold.

Peace cannot be imposed through imbalance; it must be negotiated through parity.

These are deeply troubling times. Yet questioning flawed agreements is not cynicism it is responsibility.

Only by insisting on fairness, legality, and shared humanity can the region hope to move beyond cycles of violence.

Until then, vigilance, inquiry, and moral clarity remain essential.