October 10, 2025BLOG

The Gaza War:

The war that erupted on October 7, 2023, represents a watershed moment in the century-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Initiated by an unprecedented attack by Hamas, the conflict has resulted in a devastating Israeli military campaign in Gaza, a humanitarian catastrophe of historic proportions, and significant regional escalation. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the war, situating it within its deep historical context, examining its multifaceted impact on regional and global geopolitics, and assessing India’s intricate policy response. It traces the conflict’s origins from the British Mandate through the major Arab-Israeli wars and the failed Oslo peace process. The report deconstructs the 2023-2024 war’s distinct characteristics, including the scale of violence and the strategic shifts it has induced. It further analyzes the economic and geopolitical repercussions for India, a key actor with significant interests in West Asia. Finally, the report offers a critical evaluation of a proposed October 2025 ceasefire agreement, dissecting its mechanics, its framework for Gaza’s future, and the profound challenges that threaten its long-term viability. The analysis concludes that while the agreement may offer a temporary cessation of hostilities, its structural flaws and the unresolved core political issues render a lasting peace an elusive prospect, portending a future of continued instability for the region.

Part I: The History

To comprehend the magnitude and complexities of the 2023-2024 Gaza War, it is imperative to understand the historical forces that have shaped the Israeli-Palestinian landscape. The conflict is not a recent phenomenon but the culmination of over a century of competing national aspirations, external interventions, and a recurring cycle of violence and abortive diplomacy.

From Mandate to Statehood: The Balfour Declaration, British Rule, and the 1948 War

The genesis of the modern conflict can be traced to the era of World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In 1917, the British government issued the Balfour Declaration, a public pledge supporting the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”. This document was fundamentally contradictory, as it also stipulated that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”. This created a framework of competing, and ultimately irreconcilable, claims to the same territory.

Following the war, the League of Nations granted Britain the Mandate for Palestine in 1922. Under British administration, large-scale Jewish immigration, primarily from Europe, was facilitated. This dramatically altered the region’s demography; between 1922 and 1935, the Jewish population surged from approximately 9% to nearly 27% of the total. This influx, coupled with land purchases, fueled growing Arab resentment and fear of displacement, leading to violent protests and culminating in the major Arab Revolt of 1936-1939, which was suppressed by British forces.

Weakened by World War II and unable to manage the escalating violence between Jewish militias and Palestinian Arabs, Britain turned the issue over to the newly formed United Nations. In November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, the Partition Plan, which recommended the division of Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states with Jerusalem under international administration. While Jewish leaders accepted the plan, it was unequivocally rejected by Arab leaders and the Palestinian population, who viewed it as an unjust division of their homeland.

The plan was never implemented. On May 14, 1948, as the British Mandate expired, Jewish leaders declared the establishment of the State of Israel. Immediately, armies from five Arab nations—Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon—invaded, initiating the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Contrary to expectations, the nascent Israeli forces emerged victorious. The 1949 armistice agreements left Israel in control of more territory than allotted under the Partition Plan. The war created an enduring legacy of displacement, with over 700,000 Palestinians fleeing or being expelled from their homes—an event Palestinians call the Nakba, or “catastrophe”. This event established the Palestinian refugee crisis, a core issue of the conflict that remains unresolved to this day.

The Era of Conventional Warfare:

The decades following Israel’s creation were defined by conventional, state-on-state warfare.

The 1956 Suez Crisis was ignited when Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, a vital waterway controlled by British and French interests. In a secret pact, Israel, Britain, and France launched a coordinated attack on Egypt. Israel swiftly occupied the Sinai Peninsula. However, intense diplomatic pressure from the United States and the Soviet Union forced a withdrawal. While a military defeat for Egypt, the crisis was a resounding political victory for Nasser, cementing his status as a leader of pan-Arab nationalism and signaling the terminal decline of British and French colonial influence in the region.

The 1967 Six-Day War was the most transformative conflict of this era. Amid escalating tensions and the massing of Arab armies on its borders, Israel launched a series of pre-emptive air strikes on June 5, 1967, destroying the air forces of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. In a stunningly decisive victory, Israeli forces captured the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. This war fundamentally reshaped the conflict. It created the “occupied territories,” placing over a million Palestinians under Israeli military rule and establishing the “land for peace” formula—the principle that Israeli withdrawal from these territories would be the basis for future peace—which was enshrined in UN Security Council Resolution 242.

The 1973 Yom Kippur War (or October War) began with a surprise attack by Egypt and Syria on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. The initial Arab successes shattered the post-1967 myth of Israeli invincibility. Although Israeli forces eventually repelled the invasion and gained the upper hand, the psychological shock in Israel and the restored pride in the Arab world created a new political dynamic. The war demonstrated that the military status quo was not sustainable, paving the way for future diplomatic efforts, most notably the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt in 1978.

The Rise of Palestinian Nationalism and the Intifadas:

The failures of conventional Arab armies to defeat Israel shifted the focus of the conflict. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), founded in 1964, emerged as the primary vehicle for Palestinian nationalism. Under the leadership of Yasser Arafat, the PLO, an umbrella group of various factions, initially engaged in armed struggle from bases in neighboring countries.

A pivotal shift occurred in December 1987 with the outbreak of the First Intifada (Arabic for “shaking off”). This was a largely spontaneous, grassroots uprising against Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza, characterized by mass protests, civil disobedience, strikes, and stone-throwing. The Intifada refocused international attention on the plight of Palestinians living under military rule and demonstrated that the status quo was untenable. It created significant pressure on both the Israeli government and the PLO leadership to seek a negotiated solution.

It was during the First Intifada that a new major actor emerged. Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) was founded in 1987 as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza. Its ideology combined Palestinian nationalism with Islamist principles, presenting itself as an alternative to the secular PLO. Hamas established a network of social services, including schools and clinics, which helped it build a strong base of support. Crucially, it rejected any negotiated settlement with Israel and remained committed to armed resistance, positioning itself as a radical challenger to the PLO’s evolving diplomatic strategy.

The Oslo Process: A Fleeting Hope for Peace

The pressures generated by the First Intifada led to a historic breakthrough. Following secret negotiations in Norway, Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo I Accord in Washington, D.C., in September 1993. This was followed by the Oslo II Accord in 1995. The core of the Oslo process was mutual recognition: Israel recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people, and the PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist and renounced terrorism. The accords established the Palestinian Authority (PA) and granted it limited autonomy in parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, with a five-year timeline to negotiate a permanent resolution to “final status” issues: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security, and borders.

However, the promise of Oslo quickly unraveled. The process was assailed by extremists on both sides. Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups launched a wave of suicide bombings inside Israel to derail the negotiations. On the Israeli side, right-wing opposition was fierce, culminating in the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish extremist in November 1995. Subsequent Israeli governments, particularly under Benjamin Netanyahu, slowed implementation and continued to expand settlements in the West Bank, an act seen by Palestinians as a violation of the spirit of the accords.

The failure of the Camp David Summit in July 2000 to resolve the final status issues marked the definitive collapse of the Oslo process. In September 2000, a provocative visit by then-opposition leader Ariel Sharon to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount/Al-Haram Al-Sharif complex ignited widespread Palestinian protests. This spiraled into the Second Intifada (or Al-Aqsa Intifada), a far more violent and militarized conflict than the first. It was characterized by deadly suicide bombings in Israeli cities and large-scale Israeli military incursions into Palestinian territories, including Operation Defensive Shield in 2002. The intense violence of this period, which lasted until roughly 2005, shattered the remaining trust between the two sides, led Israel to begin construction of the controversial West Bank separation barrier, and effectively buried the hope for a two-state solution that the Oslo Accords had briefly represented.

The evolution of the conflict from state-versus-state warfare to a more asymmetric struggle is a critical theme. The early wars were fought between national armies. However, the 1967 occupation created a large, disenfranchised population under direct military rule, shifting the conflict’s center of gravity. The First Intifada was a clear manifestation of this shift, as it was a popular uprising, not a state-led military campaign. The subsequent rise of non-state actors like Hamas and Hezbollah, employing tactics of guerrilla warfare and terrorism, cemented this transformation. This change in the nature of the conflict made traditional diplomatic models based on agreements between states increasingly inadequate.

Furthermore, a clear cyclical pattern emerges where failed diplomacy fuels radicalization. The inability of Arab states to defeat Israel militarily empowered the PLO as an independent nationalist movement. In turn, the perceived failures and compromises of the PLO-led Oslo process, combined with the reality of expanding Israeli settlements on the ground, created a political vacuum that Hamas successfully filled by offering a more uncompromising, confrontational path. The collapse of the Camp David 2000 summit was the immediate prelude to the Second Intifada. This recurring pattern demonstrates how each diplomatic failure tends to delegitimize moderate factions and empower more radical elements on both sides, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of violence and making sustainable peace ever more difficult to achieve.

Year/Period	Event	Key Outcome/Significance
1917	Balfour Declaration	Establishes British support for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.
1947	UN Partition Plan (Res. 181)	Proposes two states; accepted by Jewish leaders, rejected by Arab leaders.
1948–49	First Arab-Israeli War (Nakba)	State of Israel established; armistice lines drawn; Palestinian refugee crisis begins.
1956	Suez Crisis	Israeli/British/French attack on Egypt; political victory for Nasser; decline of UK/French influence.
1967	Six-Day War	Decisive Israeli victory; Israel occupies West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights, and Sinai Peninsula.
1973	Yom Kippur War	Surprise Arab attack shatters Israeli invincibility; creates political opening for peace talks.
1987–93	First Intifada	Palestinian grassroots uprising against occupation; creates pressure for negotiations.
1993–95	Oslo Accords	Mutual recognition between Israel and PLO; creation of the Palestinian Authority.
2000–05	Second Intifada	Collapse of the peace process; major escalation of violence, suicide bombings, and military operations.

Part II: Gaza War – A Paradigm Shift

The war that commenced on October 7, 2023, is not merely another chapter in the long history of the conflict; it represents a fundamental break in its scale, intensity, and regional implications. It has shattered long-held strategic assumptions, created a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented severity, and redrawn the geopolitical map of West Asia.

Operation Al-Aqsa Flood:

At dawn on October 7, 2023, coinciding with the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah, Hamas and allied Palestinian militant groups launched a meticulously planned and brutally executed surprise attack on Israel, codenamed “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood”. The assault began with a barrage of over 3,000 rockets that overwhelmed parts of Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system. Simultaneously, approximately 3,000 militants breached the heavily fortified Gaza-Israel border at multiple points using explosives, bulldozers, and paragliders.

The attackers infiltrated more than 20 Israeli border communities, military bases, and the Nova music festival near Re’im. The violence was indiscriminate and widespread, with militants engaging in house-to-house killings and massacres at kibbutzim such as Be’eri and Kfar Aza. The attack resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 people, the vast majority of whom were civilians, and the abduction of 251 individuals to Gaza as hostages. The scale and brutality of the assault made it the deadliest single day in Israel’s history and the worst massacre of Jewish people since the Holocaust.

Hamas framed the attack as a response to ongoing Israeli actions, including events at the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound and the blockade of Gaza. However, it also carried a clear geopolitical motivation: to violently disrupt the process of normalization of relations between Israel and key Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia, a process that threatened to further isolate the Palestinian cause.

The October 7th attack constituted a catastrophic failure of Israel’s long-standing security doctrine. For years, Israel’s strategy toward Gaza was one of containment, relying on a high-tech border fence, sophisticated intelligence gathering, and periodic, limited military operations (informally known as “mowing the grass”) to degrade Hamas’s capabilities without seeking its complete overthrow. The total surprise and overwhelming success of the Hamas assault demonstrated the complete collapse of this doctrine. This strategic shock and national trauma explain the unprecedented scale and maximalist objectives of Israel’s subsequent military response, which shifted from containment to a declared goal of eradication.

Operation Iron Swords:

In response to the attack, the Israeli government declared a state of war, launching “Operation Iron Swords”. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu articulated a set of uncompromising objectives: the complete destruction of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities, the safe return of all hostages, and the permanent neutralization of any future threat from the Gaza Strip.

The military campaign unfolded in distinct phases. It began with weeks of intense and widespread aerial bombardment targeting Hamas command centers, tunnel networks, and other infrastructure across Gaza. This was followed on October 27, 2023, by the launch of a full-scale ground invasion. Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) conducted major operations, advancing first into northern Gaza and Gaza City, followed by campaigns in the southern cities of Khan Younis and, later, Rafah. This protracted campaign, Israel’s longest-ever military conflict, resulted in the IDF establishing military control over roughly 75% of the Gaza Strip.

The military tactics employed were characterized by the massive use of firepower. By mid-December 2023, Israel had reportedly dropped 29,000 munitions on the densely populated territory. This has led to a level of destruction that experts have described as among the most severe in recent history, with assessments indicating that up to 70% of Gaza’s homes have been damaged or destroyed.

The Humanitarian Catastrophe:

The military campaign has precipitated a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza on an almost unimaginable scale. According to figures from the Gaza Ministry of Health, which are considered credible by the UN, the Palestinian death toll has surpassed 67,000, with an additional 14,000 people missing and presumed dead under the rubble. Over 169,000 people have been injured. Women and children constitute a majority of the casualties.

The war has triggered the forced displacement of nearly the entire population. An estimated 1.9 to 2.1 million people—around 90% of Gaza’s inhabitants—have been internally displaced, many of them multiple times, as Israeli evacuation orders pushed the population into ever-shrinking “safe zones” that were themselves often struck. These displaced persons are living in dire conditions in overcrowded UN shelters, makeshift tents, or in the open, lacking access to basic necessities.

Compounding the crisis is Israel’s tightened blockade, which has severely restricted the entry of food, water, fuel, and medical supplies. This has led to the collapse of the healthcare system, with most hospitals rendered non-functional, and has plunged the population into a severe hunger crisis. By mid-2024, international bodies confirmed a state of famine in parts of Gaza, with widespread acute malnutrition, particularly among children.

The physical destruction has transformed the landscape of Gaza, generating over 50 million tonnes of rubble, much of it contaminated with unexploded ordnance and hazardous materials. The systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure—including hospitals, schools, universities, mosques, bakeries, and agricultural land—has rendered large parts of the Strip uninhabitable. This represents a qualitative shift from a recurring humanitarian crisis to a long-term habitability crisis, moving the challenge beyond aid delivery to a multi-generational reconstruction effort on a scale rarely seen in modern conflict.

Category	Figure	Source/Date
Palestinian Casualties (Gaza)	Killed: >67,000 (+14,000 missing); Injured: >169,000	Gaza MoH / UN OCHA (as of Oct 2025)
Israeli Casualties	Killed: ~1,200 (Oct 7) + >400 soldiers (in Gaza); Injured: >13,500	Israeli Official Sources
Displaced Persons (Gaza)	~1.9 million (~90% of population)	UN OCHA / UNRWA
Damaged/Destroyed Housing Units (Gaza)	~60-70% of all housing units	UN / World Bank Assessments
Aid Workers Killed	>540	UNRWA / OHCHR

Regional Escalation and the Role of Non-State Actors:

The war quickly spilled beyond the confines of Gaza, activating a network of regional actors and escalating tensions across West Asia.

Almost immediately after October 7, a northern front opened with near-daily cross-border fire between the IDF and Hezbollah in Lebanon. This has been the most significant military escalation on that border since 2006, forcing the evacuation of tens of thousands of civilians on both sides.

In the Red Sea, the Houthi movement in Yemen began launching missile and drone attacks on commercial shipping vessels, declaring their actions an act of solidarity with the Palestinians and targeting ships linked to Israel or its allies. These attacks severely disrupted one of the world’s most critical maritime trade routes, forcing major shipping lines to reroute around Africa and prompting a military response led by the United States and the United Kingdom to protect the shipping lanes.

These actions are part of a broader strategy by Iran and its ‘Axis of Resistance’—a network of state and non-state actors that includes Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and various militias in Iraq and Syria. Throughout the war, these groups have engaged in a coordinated, multi-front campaign of pressure against Israel and its primary ally, the United States. This has included drone and rocket attacks on U.S. military bases in Iraq and Syria and has led to direct, though limited, military exchanges between Israel and Iran.

While this regional escalation has been dangerous and sustained, it has also been carefully calibrated. The actions of Hezbollah and the Houthis, while significant, have largely remained below the threshold that would trigger a full-scale regional war. This suggests a form of violent, managed escalation—a proxy war—in which all major actors, including Iran and the United States, have pursued their strategic objectives while simultaneously seeking to avoid a direct, uncontrollable conflagration that would be catastrophic for the entire region.

Part III: India’s Geopolitical Tightrope –

The Israel-Hamas war has presented a profound challenge to India’s foreign policy in West Asia. New Delhi has substantial and growing interests in the region, encompassing energy security, trade, and a large diaspora. The conflict has forced India to perform a delicate balancing act, navigating its strategic partnerships with Israel and key Arab states amidst a deeply polarized environment.

Evolution of a Policy: From Pro-Palestine Solidarity to De-Hyphenated Pragmatism

India’s historical policy was unequivocally pro-Palestinian, a stance rooted in its anti-colonial identity and its leadership role within the Non-Aligned Movement. During its freedom struggle, leaders like Mahatma Gandhi declared that “Palestine belongs to the Palestinians,” and post-independence India voted against the 1947 UN partition plan. For decades, New Delhi was a staunch supporter of the PLO, granting it diplomatic recognition in 1980, and refrained from establishing full diplomatic relations with Israel until 1992.

The end of the Cold War precipitated a major strategic realignment. In 1992, India established full diplomatic ties with Israel and began to pursue what has been termed a “de-hyphenated” policy. This approach sought to cultivate relations with Israel and Palestine as separate, independent tracks, allowing for a robust partnership with Israel without abandoning its traditional support for the Palestinian cause. This pragmatic shift was driven by India’s growing need for Israeli defense technology, agricultural know-how, and counter-terrorism cooperation.

Under the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, this policy has evolved into one of multi-alignment. The relationship with Israel has been elevated to a “strategic partnership,” marked by high-level visits and deepening cooperation in defense and technology. Simultaneously, India has forged equally strong strategic partnerships with key Gulf Arab states, notably the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia, which are now central pillars of India’s “Look West” policy. This strategy aims to maximize India’s interests by engaging with all major regional players, even those in adversarial relationships with one another.

India’s Response to the Gaza War: Diplomatic Statements, UN Votes, and “Operation Ajay”

The 2023-2024 war has served as a critical stress test for India’s multi-alignment strategy. While de-hyphenation works effectively in peacetime, a major regional conflict forces these parallel diplomatic tracks to intersect, requiring a continuous and difficult balancing act.

India’s initial reaction to the conflict was swift and clear. On October 7, Prime Minister Modi strongly condemned the Hamas assault as “terrorist attacks” and expressed “solidarity with Israel”. This statement was seen by many observers as a significant, albeit temporary, tilt towards Israel, departing from India’s traditionally more cautious and balanced initial reactions to regional flare-ups.

However, as Israel’s military response intensified and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza deepened, New Delhi recalibrated its public posture. The Ministry of External Affairs issued statements expressing deep concern over civilian casualties, calling for the observance of international humanitarian law, and reaffirming India’s long-standing support for a negotiated two-state solution. This diplomatic balancing was reflected in India’s voting pattern at the UN General Assembly. In October 2023, India abstained from a resolution calling for a humanitarian truce because it did not explicitly condemn Hamas’s attacks. By December 2023, however, as the global outcry over the situation in Gaza grew, India voted in favor of a resolution demanding an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, a position it reiterated in subsequent votes.

On the practical front, India launched “Operation Ajay” to facilitate the return of its nationals from Israel. This was framed as a repatriation effort, not a full-scale evacuation, offering assistance to any of the approximately 18,000 Indian citizens—including students, professionals, and traders—who wished to leave the conflict zone. As part of its broader diplomatic engagement, India also dispatched several consignments of humanitarian aid, including medicines and medical supplies, for the civilian population in Gaza.

Strategic and Economic Repercussions for India: the Impact on Trade, Energy Security, and Regional Initiatives (IMEEC)

The war has had tangible and significant repercussions for India’s core national interests.

Energy Security and Economy: As a nation that imports over 85% of its crude oil, India is highly vulnerable to volatility in global energy markets. The conflict and the associated risk of regional escalation created significant upward pressure on oil prices. Sustained high prices pose a direct threat to India’s economy by increasing its import bill, fueling domestic inflation, widening the current account deficit, and potentially weakening the rupee.

Trade and Maritime Security: A more direct economic impact came from the Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. This disrupted a critical artery for India’s trade with Europe, North Africa, and the US East Coast. With 90-95% of its trade reliant on foreign shipping carriers, Indian exporters faced soaring freight rates and longer transit times as vessels were forced to reroute around the Cape of Good Hope. This crisis exposed a significant strategic vulnerability in India’s supply chains and has catalyzed a renewed push by the government for greater self-reliance through a major new initiative to revitalize the domestic shipbuilding industry.

Geopolitical Initiatives: The war has dealt a severe blow to the ambitious India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEEC), which was announced at the G20 Summit in New Delhi just weeks before the conflict began. This landmark connectivity project, designed to link India to Europe via the Arabian Peninsula and Israel, is predicated on regional stability and, crucially, the ongoing normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. The war has frozen this normalization process indefinitely, casting a long shadow over IMEEC’s future and disrupting a cornerstone of India’s regional geoeconomic strategy.

Part IV: The Anatomy of a Fragile Peace – The October 2025 Ceasefire Agreement

After two years of devastating conflict, a 20-point peace plan, reportedly brokered by the United States, culminated in an agreement on the first phase of a ceasefire in early October 2025. An analysis of the agreement’s terms reveals a framework designed primarily as a technical de-escalation mechanism, front-loading achievable transactional goals while deferring the intractable political issues at the heart of the conflict. This structure, while providing a crucial cessation of hostilities, contains significant fault lines that challenge its long-term sustainability.

Phase One: The Mechanics of De-escalation, Hostage Release, and Humanitarian Relief

The initial phase of the agreement is highly detailed and focuses on immediate, tangible actions.

Ceasefire and Withdrawal: The agreement mandates a ceasefire, which is to be preceded by an Israeli military withdrawal to an agreed-upon line. This initial redeployment would leave Israeli forces in control of approximately 53% of the Gaza Strip.
Hostage and Prisoner Exchange: Following the Israeli withdrawal, a 72-hour countdown begins, during which Hamas must release all 20 hostages believed to be alive. The return of the bodies of 28 deceased hostages is to follow. In exchange, Israel will release approximately 250 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences and an additional 1,700 detainees from Gaza.
Humanitarian Surge: To address the severe famine confirmed by UN-backed experts, the plan calls for a massive increase in humanitarian aid. The initial target is a minimum of 400 trucks per day, scaling up to the plan’s specified goal of 600 trucks daily.
Monitoring: A small multinational force of around 200 troops, including contingents from Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey, will be overseen by the U.S. military to monitor the ceasefire. Critically, no U.S. forces are to be deployed on the ground in Gaza.

The Road Ahead: Deconstructing the Proposed Framework for Gaza’s Future Governance and Demilitarization

The subsequent phases of the plan, which would be subject to further negotiation, lay out a controversial and ambiguous vision for the “day after” in Gaza.

Transitional Governance: The plan proposes a “temporary transitional committee of Palestinian technocrats” to assume civil administration of Gaza. This body would be supervised by an internationally led “Board of Peace,” chaired by former U.S. President Donald Trump and involving other international figures like former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Role of the Palestinian Authority: The long-term vision is to eventually hand over governance of the Strip to a “reformed” Palestinian Authority. However, the specifics of this reform process are not defined.
Demilitarization: The plan is unequivocal in its demand for the complete demilitarization of Gaza. It states that all “military, terror and offensive infrastructure” must be destroyed and that Hamas will have “no future role in the governance of Gaza, directly or indirectly.” Hamas members would be offered either amnesty in exchange for committing to peaceful co-existence or safe passage to another country.
Phased Israeli Withdrawal: The plan outlines further, conditional Israeli withdrawals that would reduce its control first to 40% and then to 15% of the territory. This final 15% would constitute a “security perimeter” that would remain “until Gaza is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat,” a condition for which no clear timeline or objective criteria are provided.

Analysis of Potential Fault Lines: Identifying the “Sticking Points” and Challenges to a Lasting Peace

While the first phase offers a desperately needed respite, the framework for the subsequent stages is fraught with contradictions and deep-seated challenges that make a durable peace highly improbable.

The Impasse on Hamas’s Disarmament: This is the most significant structural flaw. The demand for Hamas’s complete surrender and disarmament runs directly counter to the group’s core identity and its long-standing position that it will only lay down its arms after a sovereign Palestinian state is established. Having survived a two-year war aimed at its destruction, it is highly unlikely that its leadership would accept what amounts to a political and military capitulation.
The Contradiction over the Palestinian Authority’s Role: The plan’s provision for an eventual PA takeover of Gaza is in direct conflict with public statements from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has insisted the PA will play no role. This fundamental disagreement between the plan’s text and the position of one of its key signatories creates an immediate and likely insurmountable obstacle to implementing the governance model.
The Ambiguity of the Final Israeli Withdrawal: The vague and open-ended nature of the final withdrawal from the 15% “security perimeter” is a critical point of contention. Without a clear timeline or defined milestones, this provision could be used to justify an indefinite Israeli military presence in Gaza, a scenario that would be unacceptable to any Palestinian leadership and would likely fuel a renewed insurgency.
The Legitimacy Deficit of the Governance Model: The proposed governance structure—a committee of unelected “technocrats” supervised by a board of foreign leaders—risks being perceived by Palestinians as an externally imposed, neo-colonial arrangement. The plan’s attempt to engineer a political outcome by completely excluding Hamas, which despite the war retains significant political and social influence, ignores the power realities on the ground. This creates a high probability of a legitimacy crisis, potentially leading to an internal Palestinian power struggle and undermining the authority of any transitional government.

Part V: The Conclusion

Key Findings:

The 2023-2024 Gaza War is a transformative event, born from a century of unresolved historical grievances. Its roots lie in the competing claims fostered by the Balfour Declaration, the demographic upheaval of the British Mandate, the trauma of the 1948 Nakba, and the cycle of occupation and resistance that followed the 1967 war. The failure of the Oslo peace process and the subsequent radicalization on both sides set the stage for a conflict of unprecedented intensity. The war itself has been characterized by the strategic failure of Israel’s prior containment doctrine, a military campaign that has created a habitability crisis in Gaza, and a carefully calibrated regional escalation that has drawn in actors from Lebanon to Yemen.

For India, the war has been a severe stress test for its multi-alignment strategy in West Asia, forcing a difficult diplomatic balancing act while exposing critical economic vulnerabilities in its energy and trade supply chains. The October 2025 ceasefire agreement, while providing a vital cessation of hostilities, is fundamentally a technical de-escalation plan, not a political resolution. It successfully defers the core, intractable issues—the future of Hamas, the governance of Gaza, and the final status of the territories—creating structural weaknesses that severely threaten its long-term viability.

The Conflict’s Trajectory, Viability of the Peace Deal, and Long-Term Implications:

The strategic outlook for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains profoundly challenging. The October 2025 peace agreement is likely to succeed only in its initial, transactional phase. The release of hostages and prisoners, coupled with a surge in humanitarian aid, addresses the most immediate needs of both sides. However, the deep, structural contradictions embedded in the plan’s subsequent phases make a transition to a durable political settlement highly improbable. The irreconcilable positions on Hamas’s disarmament, the contested role of the Palestinian Authority, and the open-ended nature of Israel’s final withdrawal are not minor details to be negotiated; they are the central fault lines of the conflict. The governance model, which seeks to sideline Hamas and impose an internationally supervised administration, lacks local legitimacy and is likely to fail, potentially sparking an internal Palestinian power struggle or a new phase of insurgency.

The long-term future of Gaza is bleak. The war has moved the situation beyond a humanitarian crisis to a crisis of habitability. The sheer scale of destruction to housing, water, sanitation, and health infrastructure, combined with the millions of tonnes of rubble and unexploded ordnance, means that reconstruction will be a multi-decade, multi-billion-dollar effort that cannot begin in earnest without a stable political resolution. In the interim, Gaza is likely to remain a fragmented, aid-dependent territory with a traumatized and displaced population.

Regionally, the conflict has derailed the momentum of the Abraham Accords and the broader trend of Arab-Israeli normalization. While these processes may resume in the future, the war has re-centered the Palestinian issue and hardened public opinion across the Arab world, making any rapid rapprochement with Israel politically costly for Arab leaders. The regional security architecture will remain volatile, defined by the ongoing proxy conflict between Israel and the US on one side, and Iran’s ‘Axis of Resistance’ on the other.