Implementation of the cease-fire agreement in the Gaza Strip between Israel and Palestinian group Hamas has brought a ray of hope for sustainable peace. However, its phasing out apparatus, consisting of a ceasefire, the exchange of hostages, access to humanitarian aid in Gaza and the eventual ability of Palestinians in Gaza to return to areas they fled seems to be a long process full of unforeseen factors, faulty lines and procedural, political, administrative, economic, and geographic uncertainties.
It is a bitter reality that it has been announced after inflicting lots of human miseries, widespread bloodshed, unlimited blats, a routine blatant refusal for peace and respect of humanity, completely destroying social fabrics, food and shelter systems.
Roughly, it has killed more than 45,900 innocent Palestinians and caused 100,000 injuries, displacement of hundreds of thousands population, acute hunger, poverty and disease, death and demise, haunting the helpless elderly, women and children against the Israeli undiscriminating aggression.
Additionally, denial of the supply of food and medicines has played havoc in the lives of common people. Ultimately, Gaza has become a ghost town of genocide, ethnic discrimination, intolerance and a slaughterhouse for infants.
Many regional as well as international power players played a vital role in this cease-fire agreement in which the American factor swayed and overshadowed others. Qatar and Egypt have played an extraordinary medication convincing both sides for a truce and peace agreement.
Now, the agreement aims to realize the general goal of stopping the war, which holds positive significance for the two sides to move toward a permanent cease-fire and cool down the situation in the Middle East. But frankly speaking, the cease-fire agreement is just a small step toward desirable peace because of many uncertainties about its true implementation.
It seems to be a fragile agreement because of many dissenting voices in the Israel cabinet demanding the complete elimination of Hamas. On the other hand, Hamas's discontent is and will remain strong because the inability of the Palestinians to establish an independent state will continue to provide Hamas with room for existence and action.
Moreover, there is no clarity about the post-war governance arrangements for Gaza along with political supremacy showing inbuilt faulty lines for achieving and maintaining peace.
The disagreements between Israel and Palestine over the rights of security control and governance in the Gaza Strip, as well as lack of funds for its resettlement and reconstruction pose threats of deadlock in next phases of talks. The future role of Donald Trump's administration could be essential in the process. However, the US may not be willing to invest more energy and resources to further promote peace and stability in the region.
It seems that despite the cease-fire the road to lasting peace between Israel and Palestine is still long, complex, fragile and unstable. Prolonged conflict has ruined the spirit of mutual trust, respect and degraded the level of dialogue, diplomacy and development between the two sides, which would harm any further negotiations and reconciliation.
Obviously, the rapidly changing power politics structure, rise to protectionism, security-based national narrative and strong lobby of Israel in Washington DC would not support pursuing and implementing the two-state solution for a long time.
Nevertheless, despite all hurdles the regional mediators and international community should support the cease-fire and pool funds for reconstruction of Gaza.
Interestingly, the peace agreement's conclusion is closely tied to Trump's taking office. The US exerted significant pressure, which was a crucial external factor for all parties, including Israel and Hamas, in making their decisions.
Critical analysis of the past reveals that despite strong opposition from Palestine, Trump announced on Jan 28, 2020, the "Deal of the Century," a Middle East peace plan aimed at resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by recognizing Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel and acknowledging Israeli sovereignty over Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Thus, the Deal of the Century simply demonstrated the US hegemonic designs promoting a zero-sum mindset, unilateralism and power politics.
It badly deviated from the basic principles of international law, the spirit of United Nations resolutions, and the historical basis of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
Washington may seek to rebuild relations among Middle Eastern countries through consolidating diplomatic ties among regional countries and Israel would try to reshape and redraft the US-dominated security and political landscape. The US government will likely pursue a more controversial policy attempting to address the Palestinian political issue through economic compensation and somehow military threat.
The author is president of the Center of Pak-China Corridor of Knowledge and executive director of the Center for South Asia & International Studies in Islamabad, Pakistan.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
