Published On 18/10/2025
|
Last update: 00:51 (Mecca time)
In light of the relative calm that followed the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, a political scene more complex than the battlefields is unfolding, as the features of a new conflict have begun, not managed by tanks this time, but by wills and interpretations.
While Washington seeks to consolidate its agreement that ended the war, Israel and the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) are heading towards a different kind of confrontation, the goal of which is to determine who has the final say in implementing its provisions, and to arrange priorities for the next stage.
In this context, the accelerated US moves indicate a clear desire to transform the truce into a more stable political path.
US envoy Steve Witkoff is preparing to visit the region to follow up on the establishment of an international transitional authority in Gaza, within a plan sponsored by the administration of President Donald Trump, which Washington pledged to finance and provide Arab and European peacekeeping forces.
But behind this active diplomacy lies a deeper dilemma related to who owns the interpretation of the agreement, and who determines the limits of security and sovereignty in Gaza.
Former American official Thomas Warrick, speaking to the “Current of Events” program, believes that the American commitment is in place, but he links the success of the agreement to the behavior of the Hamas movement, considering that any delay in handing over weapons or the continuation of field executions will give Washington an excuse to allow Israel to return to war.
Security or reconstruction?
However, this proposal, although it seems keen to stabilize the truce, reflects an American vision that views Israel’s security and what it deems necessary for that ahead of reconstruction in the Gaza Strip, and places the “disarmament” of the resistance as a condition for any reconstruction, which raises widespread Palestinian concern about Washington’s true intentions.
On the other hand, the Israelis realize that the current moment represents an opportunity to reshape the scene to their advantage.
According to the academic and expert on Israeli affairs, Dr. Muhannad Mustafa, Tel Aviv considers that its gains after the war outweigh any interest in resuming it, as it obtained all of its living prisoners, and maintains half of the area of the Strip under its military control.
Therefore, it seeks to establish this reality as a pressure tool on Hamas and the mediators, and to turn it into a negotiating card that gives it the upper hand in interpreting the terms of the agreement.
Mustafa believes that Israel does not want a comprehensive return to war, but in return it is working to redefine the next stage according to its security priorities.
It seeks to make “disarming Hamas” the first item in any implementation, and opposes the plan starting with the formation of a Palestinian government or committee to manage the sector, because that – from its point of view – will create an internationally recognized entity that will return it to what it considers to be the “October 6” impasse, when undesirable political facts were imposed on it.
This Israeli trend in imposing a unilateral interpretation raises concerns among the Palestinians.
Israel’s delay
According to the director of the Palestinian Information Corporation, Ibrahim Al-Madhoun, Israel is dragging its feet in implementing even the first phase of the agreement, by restricting aid, closing crossings, and continuing limited targeting, while it continues to use the issue of dead bodies as an excuse for political pressure.
He adds that the Hamas movement, which quickly committed to releasing the prisoners and implementing its obligations, is now seeking to push the process towards stability through a community support committee that runs Gaza from independents, but the occupation is trying to thwart these efforts to keep the sector in a state of “organized stagnation” that allows it to control the details.
On the other hand, Washington is proposing the transitional authority project as an alternative to local government, in an attempt to bring together international forces to carry out security tasks inside the Strip.
But this proposal, as Dr. Dalal Erekat, professor of diplomacy and conflict resolution at the Arab American University, believes, reproduces the problem of “sustainable transitional stages,” which keeps the occupation active without a radical solution.
It confirms that the guarantees provided by Trump personally have not yet turned into practical commitments, and that the regional guarantors have not played a sufficient role to ensure the transition from the first stage to the second.
Dalal Erekat believes that the fundamental problem lies in missing the essence of the conflict, as the agreement – as formulated – addresses the results of the war without approaching its causes, most notably the Israeli military occupation.
Clash of wills
She adds that the continued violations, whether in the West Bank or inside Gaza, confirm that Israel is treating the agreement as an opportunity to reposition itself, not to end the conflict, and that the American administration turns a blind eye to these violations under the slogan “security first.”
As the region enters the stage of “clash of wills,” each party seems determined to test the firmness of its opponent in interpreting the texts of the agreement. Israel wants to begin the new phase from the gate of security and disarmament, while Hamas and the Arab mediators seek to transform the agreement into a step toward stability and reconstruction.
As for Washington, it is exercising a dual role between pressuring both sides and trying to maintain its political influence in the Middle East through an international authority that may turn into a new tool for managing the crisis, according to analysts.
This overlap between wills is inseparable from broader calculations, as field data indicate that Tel Aviv is working to consolidate its military presence in specific areas south and east of the Gaza Strip, under the name of “redeployment,” while avoiding using the term “complete withdrawal,” which opens the door to a flexible interpretation that allows it to control the pace and stages of implementation.
At the same time, Hamas does not hide its fear that the agreement will turn into a cover to impose a “fragile peace” that besieges Gaza economically and prevents its reconstruction.