No peace in cease fire

The ceasefire that now holds in Gaza is less a triumph of diplomacy than a tentative intermission in a conflict defined by ruin and recrimination. Far from heralding peace, it exposes the raw fault lines in a landscape still scarred by relentless bombardment and unhealed wounds. The guns may have fallen silent, but beneath that quiet lies a brittle tension: distrust festers on both sides, humanitarian needs go largely unmet, and any hope of genuine reconciliation hangs by a thread. Israel has signaled unambiguously that the campaign against Hamas remains far from over. The stated goal of dismantling the group continues to dominate military planning, sidelining urgent conversations about rebuilding infrastructure or restoring civil order. Families still clutch memories of hostages seized in earlier raids, and unresolved questions about the fates of those presumed dead only intensify public anger. Gaza’s streets, once teeming with life, lie in rubble, complicating recovery efforts and fueling resentment that any truce risks dissolving overnight. A defiant Hamas, bears its own share of responsibility for the impasse. Its refusal to account fully for the hostages’ remains-and to acknowledge the logistical impossibility of operating amid vast destruction-has eroded trust among international mediators and the Israeli public alike. By resisting independent oversight or outside assistance in locating the missing, the group has allowed cynics to frame its motives as purely tactical rather than humanitarian, deepening the divide between ceasefire rhetoric and a workable reality. Into this dangerous vacuum comes a recent warning from US president Donald Trump, that if the killing spree by Hamas against civilians suspected of being “collaborators” continue, then he would have no option but to use force or give Israel blanket permission to resume military operations. This asymmetric expectation undercuts genuine ceasefire diplomacy, reducing complex security challenges to a zero-sum game. Regional players, meanwhile, remain mired in factionalism. Last week’s Gaza Summit showcased a spectrum of stances-from Egypt, Qatar, and Jordan urging de-escalation to Iran, Syria, and Yemen demanding nothing short of total Israeli withdrawal. Those divisions sabotage a unified Arab front and stall collective initiatives for aid delivery or political dialogue. At the heart of this crisis lies an undeniable moral imperative- resolve the hostage issue. Unless the international community forces Hamas to cooperate fully-or steps in with a neutral technical mission charged with recovering remains and returning them with dignity-the ceasefire will remain illegitimate in the eyes of too many stakeholders. Transparency, not rhetoric, is the currency of trust. Even decisive action on this front will only address the symptoms of a deeper malaise. Lasting peace demands neutral international forces empowered to oversee humanitarian corridors, guarantee civilian protections, and monitor compliance. Past peacekeeping missions in other theaters-from Lebanon to the Balkans-have shown mixed results where the alternative horror is vacuum-induced warfare. The world stands at a crossroads. This pause is not peace but an invitation to act. If Hamas and Israel cling to maximalist demands, if regional governments stay fractured, and if global powers continue to prize strategic leverage over genuine peacemaking, Gaza will once again descend into bloodshed. The world cannot afford another round of devastation. Gaza waits not for another ceasefire but for the courage to transform this temporary calm into a blueprint for coexistence-one built on accountability, humanitarian justice, and the immutable principle that no truce, however fragile, should replace the hard work of lasting peace.