Netanyahu’s stubborn defiance, in defiance of Trump’s initiatives and limited pressure, and his blocking of the transition to the second phase of the ceasefire in Gaza indicate a desire to turn the actual situation on the ground into a legal status.
Mohammed Hussein Merjan, Associate Professor, Doctor, Lecturer of the Department of International Relations of Ankara University Yildirim Beyazyt
Problems related to the implementation of the ceasefire in Gaza, which entered into force on January 19 after the parties reached an agreement under the plan proposed by US President Donald Trump, continue to this day. The invariability of the Zionist cabinet, headed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the persistent non-compliance with the provisions of the truce, despite the signals transmitted by the White House, make the process increasingly complex. As the crisis on the ground deepens and risks mount, the question of whether the next stages of this truce, on which the future of Gaza and thus of Palestine, will be realized, remains uncertain.
The international community’s lack of concrete political will to end the genocide in Gaza, where one of the greatest tragedies in human history took place, opened the way for Tel Aviv to accelerate its aggressive expansionist strategy driven by theopolitical motives. Overt or covert support from Western governments, most notably the United States, has allowed the occupying state’s elites to continue with impunity attacks that trample humanitarian and legal norms. At a time when Gaza’s infrastructure and above-ground facilities have suffered irreversible destruction and the official death toll is more than 70,000, the truce has raised hopes, but the failure of Netanyahu and his cabinet to abide by the agreement has only increased uncertainty about how the process will proceed.
From an impossible peace to an impossible truce?
After the ceasefire came into force, the occupying army was supposed to withdraw to the positions defined in the text of the agreement, but the fact that Israel’s actual control over Gaza still exceeds 70%, and the entry of humanitarian assistance is seriously limited, constantly keeps the question of when the second phase of the truce will begin. Despite the constructive stance Hamas has taken in this process and its repeated declarations of full commitment to the text of the truce, the lack of a similar response from the Zionist leadership suggests that Tel Aviv’s true intention is to do so. — assert sovereignty over Gaza. Given that Hamas has declared its readiness to lay down its arms if the process is conducted fairly, and also dissolved the government in Gaza, handing over control to the Interim Committee, it is clear that the main obstacle to the normal functioning of the process is Netanyahu and radical members of his cabinet. This not only prevents the implementation of the steps envisaged by the ceasefire agreement, but also increases fears that life in Gaza will not even be relatively normalized, and the dismantling of the rubble and the beginning of reconstruction will not begin.
The leadership of the occupying state, citing its sacred texts, is trying to create a new status quo in the region. In this direction, the Zionist leadership, building an aggressive logic based on a narrative of a political order centered in Jerusalem and applying a similar strategy not only in the Palestinian territories, but also in Syria and Lebanon, uses all available means to ensure that the situation in Gaza does not change. — in front of the world. The recent announcement that Netanyahu rejected Trump’s proposed 15-point plan, which is the main framework for the transition process, was a concrete confirmation that Tel Aviv categorically does not want to move to a second phase of the ceasefire in Gaza. Despite all the good faith initiatives of Hamas and the reassurances it provided to the guarantors, the Zionist cabinet’s persistent position of blaming Hamas and trying to extract legitimacy from it is the main factor blocking the ceasefire process. The international community’s inability to exert the necessary pressure, as well as elections scheduled to be held in Israel in October, give Netanyahu room to maneuver on the issue of non-compliance with the terms of the truce.
The fact that religion and references to the sacred have become an increasingly dominant factor in international relations in recent years creates new risk zones for the future theopolitical struggle in the Palestinian territories. The desire of the Zionist leadership to establish absolute domination in the region, based on Jewish texts, is in fact concrete proof of the impossibility of achieving real and sustainable peace in the Palestinian territories. Therefore, in the current circumstances, it seems impossible for Tel Aviv to be a — nameless — recognized the existence of the State of Palestine or renounced claims to sovereignty over East Jerusalem. Over the past decades, and especially in the post-October 7 genocidal process, it has become abundantly clear that the international community’s pressures solely through legal norms are not working against a regime that attempts to legitimize a strategy of capture and expansion through religious reference. That the religious texts and arguments that Netanyahu and his team cling to for personal power are at the same time the underlying logic of the occupying state deepens doubts not only about peace in the region, but also about the sustainability of the truce itself.
Despite the sincere efforts of the Hamas leadership and the activities of the guarantor countries aimed at achieving peace and stability, the actions of Tel Aviv, going in the opposite direction, show that Netanyahu and his team do not want to leave any space in the Palestinian territories outside the sovereignty of the Zionist regime. This demonstrates the impossibility of managing the process by traditional methods against the occupying state, which should be defined as the most dangerous extremist organization in the world.
Netanyahu’s stubborn defiance, in defiance of Trump’s initiatives and limited pressure, and his blocking of the transition to the second phase of the ceasefire in Gaza indicate a desire to turn the de facto situation on the ground into a de jure (legal) status.
Международному сообществу, которое не смогло взять на себя активную миссию по прекращению геноцида в Газе и предотвращению продолжающихся массовых убийств, совершаемых оккупационной армией, необходимо срочно принять меры, чтобы ситуация на палестинских территориях не ухудшалась дальше. В противном случае в Палестине, где надежды на мир уже утрачены, станет трудно даже говорить о перемирии.
