The Gaza crisis is no longer merely a local confrontation between Israel and Hamas; it has become one of the most consequential tests of the international order, humanitarian law and the credibility of global diplomacy. What began as another chapter in the protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict has evolved into a devastating humanitarian catastrophe and a formidable diplomatic challenge.
Behind the immediate violence lies a century of contested history, displacement, occupation, competing national aspirations and repeated failures of negotiation. The central question now is not simply how to stop the fighting, but whether the current diplomatic momentum can transform a fragile ceasefire into a durable political settlement.
The roots of the conflict stretch back to the early twentieth century, but the establishment of Israel in 1948 and the Palestinian Nakba created the foundations of the modern dispute. The 1967 war further complicated the situation when Israel occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.
Although Israel withdrew its permanent military presence and settlements from Gaza in 2005, its control over borders, airspace and access continued to shape the territory's political and economic reality. Hamas's electoral victory in 2006 and its subsequent takeover of Gaza in 2007 deepened the Palestinian political schism between Hamas and Fatah, leaving the Palestinian leadership divided between Gaza and the West Bank.
The Oslo Accords of the 1990s once generated cautious optimism. Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation recognised each other, and the Palestinian Authority was established as an interim governing structure. Yet Oslo postponed the most contentious questions—Jerusalem, refugees, borders, settlements and sovereignty—rather than resolving them.
Consequently, what was intended as a transitional framework gradually became a symbol of an unfinished peace process. The expansion of Israeli settlements and the absence of a sovereign Palestinian state subsequently weakened confidence in the two-state paradigm.
The Gaza crisis reached an unprecedented level after Hamas's 7 October 2023 attack on Israel, in which approximately 1,200 people were killed and around 250 were taken hostage. Israel responded with an extensive military campaign across Gaza, producing enormous civilian casualties, mass displacement and infrastructural devastation. The consequences have extended far beyond the battlefield: Gaza's healthcare system has been severely degraded, schools and homes have been destroyed, food insecurity has intensified and access to water, sanitation and humanitarian assistance has become increasingly precarious.
This humanitarian catastrophe has simultaneously exposed the limitations of the existing peace architecture. Previous ceasefires, including those mediated by Egypt and Qatar, have generally been temporary and transactional, focusing on hostage releases, prisoner exchanges or humanitarian access rather than addressing the structural causes of conflict.
Egypt and Qatar have nevertheless remained indispensable interlocutors because they possess channels of communication with both Israel and Palestinian actors. The United States, meanwhile, remains the most influential external actor because of its strategic relationship with Israel and its capacity to exert diplomatic and economic leverage.
Is there a peace deal now?
As of 17 August 2026, there is an important diplomatic development, but it would be misleading to describe the situation as a fully implemented and permanent peace agreement.
The most significant initiative is US President Donald Trump's broader 20-point Gaza peace plan, which seeks a permanent cessation of hostilities, Hamas's disarmament, phased Israeli withdrawal, a new Palestinian technocratic administration, international security arrangements and large-scale reconstruction. In January 2026, the United States announced the formation of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, intended to oversee governance, public services and reconstruction as part of Phase Two of the plan.
The future of Gaza will depend on whether diplomacy can move beyond temporary ceasefires towards an enforceable political settlement. The first priority must be the consolidation of a durable ceasefire accompanied by unhindered humanitarian access
The White House
A major breakthrough emerged in late July 2026 when Hamas agreed in principle to a framework involving disarmament, transfer of civilian authority to a Palestinian technocratic government and a phased Israeli withdrawal. The arrangement was presented as a major step towards implementing Trump's 20-point framework.
However, the agreement has not yet translated into a comprehensive, stable peace settlement. The principal obstacle is sequencing. Hamas has accepted a phased process, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted that Israel will not withdraw from Gaza until Hamas is completely disarmed. Israel subsequently rejected the newer US-backed 15-point roadmap, while Hamas has continued to support the broader framework subject to reciprocal Israeli commitments.
Therefore, the present situation should be characterised as a fragile and contested peace process rather than a final peace deal. Indeed, diplomatic efforts remain active. On 17 August, US envoy Jared Kushner met Netanyahu after meeting Hamas's political leadership in Cairo, seeking to revive negotiations and overcome the deadlock over disarmament and Israeli withdrawal.
What comes next?
The future of Gaza will depend on whether diplomacy can move beyond temporary ceasefires towards an enforceable political settlement. The first priority must be the consolidation of a durable ceasefire accompanied by unhindered humanitarian access. Without food, medicine, shelter, clean water and reconstruction, peace will remain little more than a diplomatic abstraction.
Second, Gaza requires a credible post-war governance mechanism. A Palestinian technocratic administration could potentially provide an interim alternative to both direct Israeli military rule and continued Hamas governance. Yet such an arrangement will require Palestinian legitimacy, Arab backing and international guarantees.
Third, disarmament must be accompanied by reciprocal security guarantees. Demanding unilateral concessions from one side while leaving the other''s security concerns unaddressed, is unlikely to produce sustainable peace. A monitored, phased process involving an international stabilisation force could offer a possible mechanism for preventing renewed violence.
Most importantly, however, Gaza cannot be detached from the broader Israeli-Palestinian question. Reconstruction without political rights may restore buildings but not peace. A sustainable settlement ultimately requires addressing Palestinian self-determination, Israeli security, borders, Jerusalem, settlements and the refugee question. The two-state solution, despite its severe political and territorial obstacles, remains the most widely supported international framework for resolving these fundamental disputes.
The international community also has a decisive responsibility. The United States must use its considerable leverage more consistently; the European union should overcome its internal divisions; Arab states must continue mediation and reconstruction efforts; and the United Nations should strengthen mechanisms for humanitarian protection and international monitoring. China and other emerging powers could also contribute to a more genuinely multilateral diplomatic architecture.
Ultimately, the Gaza crisis has exposed the limitations of a diplomacy that repeatedly treats symptoms while postponing causes.
A ceasefire can silence weapons, facilitate hostage releases and open humanitarian corridors, but it cannot by itself resolve the political architecture that has sustained decades of confrontation. If the present diplomatic momentum is to become meaningful, it must evolve from a transactional arrangement into a structured peace process one capable of linking security, governance, reconstruction, political legitimacy and Palestinian self-determination within a coherent framework.
The real measure of success, therefore, will not be whether the guns fall silent for several weeks or whether another agreement is signed. It will be whether the parties can transform temporary restraint into durable coexistence, whether Israeli security can be reconciled with Palestinian political rights whether reconstruction can be converted into economic and institutional recovery and whether international guarantees can replace the recurring logic of retaliation with a credible system of accountability.
Gaza does not simply need another pause between wars. It needs a political architecture capable of making the next war unnecessary. After decades in which diplomacy has repeatedly approached the threshold of peace only to retreat into another cycle of violence, the current opening represents not a guarantee of peace, but a rare opportunity to redefine what peace itself must mean not merely the absence of war, but the presence of security, dignity, political rights, accountable governance and a viable future for both Palestinians and Israelis.
* Farzana Afroz is Associate Professor, Department of International Relations, Jahangirnagar University
* Tania Khatun is a student of Department of International Relations, Jahangirnagar University