The international community is taking a cautiously optimistic view of the recent declaration of a ceasefire in Gaza. Although US President Donald Trump and other world leaders have marked this as a potential turning point, the situation on the ground suggests the path to lasting peace remains highly uncertain.
Despite various military efforts by Tel Aviv aimed at weakening its operational capabilities, Hamas has not been dismantled. The organization’s extensive and sophisticated tunneling infrastructure remains largely intact, allowing it to maintain its strategic advantage and continue operating underground. These tunnels serve multiple purposes, including the movement of personnel, weapons, and surprise attacks, making it difficult for the Israeli military to completely contain Hamas.
Additionally, the group has successfully held captives for over two years, a situation that highlights both the group’s resilience and Israel’s continued challenges in dealing with the group. Despite Israel’s advanced technological capabilities, including surveillance systems, intelligence, and military technology, it was unable to rescue Israeli prisoners or significantly disrupt Hamas’s core organization.
The continued stalemate highlights the complexity of the conflict and the limits of Hamas’ technological and military advantages in dealing with its deeply entrenched and multifaceted operations. Disarmament of Hamas is on the agenda for talks in Egypt, and prospects for long-term peace may remain out of reach if Israel continues to insist on complete disarmament of Hamas as a precondition for a durable solution.
This approach overlooks the political and ideological calculations driving Hamas’ resistance. For Hamas, its military wing is not just an instrument of war, but an important pillar of its political identity and influence, both domestically and in the broader regional context.
The organization recognizes that giving up all its weapons could significantly weaken its influence, erode its ability to negotiate from a position of strength, and potentially render the organization politically irrelevant in the eyes of its supporters. This was particularly evident in the group’s response to assassination attempts of political leaders abroad, particularly in Qatar, and only reinforced the group’s belief in the necessity of armed resistance as a form of deterrence and survival.
Although it is highly unlikely that Hamas will agree to complete disarmament, there are signs that it may be open to certain compromises, especially under the right political terms or as part of a broader negotiated settlement that includes concrete benefits for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. These could include limited disarmament coupled with mutual concessions, international guarantees, or political recognition. However, as long as disarmament is set out as an ultimatum rather than part of a mutual agreement, Hamas can be expected to resist such demands, viewing them as an existential threat rather than a step toward peace.
As a result, insisting on complete disarmament without addressing the underlying political dynamics may prolong rather than resolve conflicts.
Particularly if international pressure on Israel continues and there is regional mediation, the ceasefire is likely to remain in principle, with broad compliance by both parties to its terms. Tel Aviv, in particular, may be expected to recognize the political and diplomatic costs of reigniting all-out war and keep its promise to refrain from launching large-scale military operations.
However, a ceasefire in this situation is not absolute, as past experience has shown, especially along the Lebanese border. Israel will carry out minor violations, whether it be targeted air strikes or drone infiltration. These incidents may not reflect a formal breakdown of the ceasefire agreement, but rather complex and often unstable dynamics on the ground and Israeli efforts to test the limits of the agreement.
Moreover, Hamas does not operate in isolation, but is an integral part of a broader regional network, the Axis of Resistance. While each of these groups pursues unique strategic objectives shaped by local circumstances, they are united by a common ideological foundation, and this interconnectedness significantly complicates Israel’s efforts to isolate or dismantle Hamas through unilateral action.
The durability of the ceasefire in the coming months will depend not only on the actions of Hamas and Israel, but also on the involvement of regional powers and the parties’ willingness to engage in pragmatic rather than maximalist negotiations. Unless core political issues and broader regional entanglements are addressed, the current calm could become a further stagnation in the conflict with no clear end in sight.