The proposed ceasefire in Gaza, while welcomed as a potential pause in violence, carries deep cracks in its foundation. Guarantees both diplomatic and military look thin, especially when enforcement depends on parties with asymmetric power and conflicting interests. Insurgent groups often distrust centralized actors, while states may see advantages in ambiguous terms or loopholes. The local populations, caught in the crossfire, have little confidence that terms will hold, especially when past ceasefires were broken.

Issues include: Who monitors violations? Who punishes breaches? How long does the truce last? What happens if one side resumes hostilities first? Also, even if guns fall silent, underlying causes territorial claims, humanitarian access, governance, reconstruction remain unresolved. Without addressing these, peace is a lull, not a solution. External pressure (from international actors) complicates things further funding, leverage, media narratives, and political will shift fast.

The deal’s survival depends on trust scarce in this theater. For now, the ceasefire is a bet on restraint, not certainty. If either side calculates it can gain more by breaking it, the “pause” may shatter into renewed conflict.