Gaza ceasefire deal faces credibility issues and risks collapse

The proposed Gaza peace plan has sparked widespread debate and scepticism, with many observers questioning whether it can realistically bring lasting stability to the region. Although presented as a breakthrough to end years of conflict, critics argue that the plan’s core demands are politically untenable for key Palestinian factions. Concerns have emerged that it may deepen mistrust rather than create meaningful peace.

At the heart of the plan are requirements that are widely seen as one-sided and impractical. These include the demand for unilateral disarmament, the exclusion of major Palestinian stakeholders, and the lack of credible enforcement mechanisms. Historical precedents suggest that proposals requiring one side to make large concessions without proper guarantees rarely succeed. Many fear that this initiative risks repeating the same mistakes, leaving both Palestinians and Israelis frustrated.

One of the most controversial demands is that Hamas fully disarm and step aside from its governing role in Gaza. The plan effectively asks the dominant armed Palestinian faction to surrender its military capabilities before any trust or guarantees are in place. Hamas, which sees its arms as essential for resistance against occupation, has repeatedly refused such disarmament. From their perspective, giving up weapons unilaterally would mean relinquishing strategic leverage with no assurance of security or fairness.

This issue is not new. Previous peace proposals have frequently asked one side to disarm first, only for the other to renege or apply coercive measures later. Without clear enforcement, unilateral disarmament risks becoming a trap, leaving the party that complies vulnerable. Analysts argue that any sustainable ceasefire must include mechanisms that ensure all parties adhere to commitments simultaneously, not sequentially.

Exclusion of stakeholders and weak enforcement

Another major flaw of the Gaza peace plan is the minimal role it gives to critical Palestinian actors. Hamas, and in many respects the Palestinian Authority (PA), are largely excluded from the decision-making process. The plan envisions a transitional technocratic governance structure overseen mainly by external actors. For instance, a public suggestion floated a “Board of Peace” chaired by former U.S. President Trump and others, including Tony Blair. Draft documents suggest that the PA could be relegated to secondary roles, weakening Palestinian political legitimacy. Without authentic participation, the plan lacks credibility on the ground.

Even assuming agreement on governance structures, the plan provides almost no credible enforcement mechanisms. There is little detail about timelines, accountability, or binding obligations, leaving ample room for interpretation. Reports indicate that Israel may retain a “security perimeter” and continue oversight of Gaza’s borders, effectively maintaining control despite formal withdrawal plans. Proposals for an international stabilization force or oversight board remain vague, with no clarity on operational authority or dispute resolution. In effect, Palestinians are being asked to commit to major concessions based on hope rather than enforceable guarantees. Such asymmetry increases the risk of backsliding and heightens mistrust.

Critics point out that the plan closely resembles previous failed initiatives. Historically, peace efforts that demand unilateral concessions without enforcement, attempt to sideline local actors, or rely on vague promises have repeatedly faltered. Often, the weaker side complies, only to be undermined later by the stronger side. External oversight without local legitimacy tends to breed resentment, creating the perception that peace is imposed rather than agreed upon.

ALSO READ: RSS completes 100 years of service and organisation

ALSO READ: Coffee on empty stomach? AIIMS doctor warns against these coffee habits

Given the deep mistrust between the parties, the political split among Palestinian factions, and the continuing power imbalance, any successful plan must include Palestinian voices, provide enforceable mechanisms, and balance security with sovereignty. A ceasefire that ignores these fundamentals risks being yet another blueprint for stalemate rather than a genuine path to peace.

Ultimately, the Gaza peace plan faces a credibility crisis because it asks Palestinians to make significant concessions without sufficient guarantees. The demand for unilateral disarmament, exclusion of critical actors, and lack of enforcement mechanisms mirror past initiatives that failed. Analysts warn that without inclusive dialogue, clear accountability, and realistic timelines, the plan may collapse before it can even take effect. History shows that durable peace is possible only when agreements are fair, enforceable, and rooted in legitimacy on both sides.

Until these issues are addressed, doubts about the plan’s sustainability are likely to persist. Experts suggest that the key to success lies in balancing power, ensuring participation, and creating credible enforcement frameworks. Without these measures, the Gaza peace plan, however well-intentioned, risks becoming another temporary arrangement that does not resolve the underlying conflicts or meet the aspirations of those living in the region.