A ceasefire will likely only reset the cycle of violence unless it is immediately and explicitly leveraged to establish a credible, irreversible political framework for a final settlement that addresses the core issues of the conflict.

A pause in fighting, by itself, is a temporary, tactical, and transactional measure; it provides negative peace (absence of violence) but lacks the positive peace (resolution of underlying disputes) necessary for a durable foundation.

I. The Critical Distinction: Pause vs. Process

A ceasefire's future depends entirely on its connection to a broader diplomatic effort.

A. The "Reset Button" Trap: Why Temporary Pauses Fail

Historically, temporary ceasefires in this conflict and others have served as a "reset button" for violence rather than a foundation for peace for several reasons:

1. Failure to Address Root Causes: A ceasefire deals only with the symptoms (the fighting) but ignores the disease (the political denial of national rights, the occupation, and existential security fears). Without addressing statehood, security guarantees, and mutual recognition, the fundamental grievances that drive actors to re-arm and restart hostilities remain active.

2. Strategic Re-grouping: Both sides may use the ceasefire period to rearm, resupply, or politically reposition themselves, viewing the pause as a necessary tactical interlude before the next round of conflict. This undermines the intent of peacebuilding.

3. Entrenched Mistrust: Decades of broken agreements have created profound mistrust on both sides. Without a clear, verifiable, and enforceable mechanism to monitor the ceasefire, each side will fear the other is exploiting the pause, creating a security dilemma where defensive preparations are perceived as offensive threats, leading to pre-emptive military action.

4. Lack of Political Horizon: If the ceasefire is not explicitly linked to a clear, time-bound negotiation for a final political settlement, it de-legitimizes moderate political actors who advocate for diplomacy and empowers extremist groups who argue that only violence can force concessions.

B. The Foundation for Peace: Making a Ceasefire Transformational

For the current ceasefire to become a foundation for peace, it must immediately transition from a purely transactional phase (hostages for prisoners/aid) to a transformational political process. This requires embedding the ceasefire within a political framework that mandates progress on the core issues.

II. Conditions for Transitioning to a Broader Peace Process

A successful transition is not automatic; it requires specific, concrete actions and structural conditions:

1. Binding Political Commitment and Sequencing

The ceasefire must be explicitly linked to a political process with clear objectives and a set timetable.

• Explicit Mandate: The international community, led by key regional and global powers, must issue a clear declaration that the current cessation of hostilities marks the irrevocable start of negotiations for a Two-State Solution (or an alternative final status agreement).

• Irreversible Steps: The initial phases of the ceasefire (e.g., troop disengagement, aid flow) must be immediately followed by irreversible political or security steps that build confidence, such as an agreed-upon mechanism for the long-term governance of the Palestinian territory and a freeze on settlement expansion.

2. Robust Monitoring and Verification (M&V)

The fragility of the ceasefire necessitates an external guarantor to prevent escalation.

• Third-Party Deployment: A neutral, credible, and robust international M&V mechanism (potentially UN-backed or supported by a coalition of regional states) must be deployed to monitor compliance, separate forces, and investigate violations. This presence helps reduce uncertainty about the adversary’s intentions, which is a key driver of renewed conflict.

• Dispute Resolution Channel: An agreed-upon, high-level dispute resolution mechanism is essential to quickly de-escalate minor violations or misunderstandings, preventing them from spiraling into a resumption of war.

3. Addressing the Governance Vacuum

Sustainable peace requires a legitimate, unified Palestinian governing authority capable of fulfilling both the political and security demands of a future state.

• Unified Palestinian Leadership: Any political process must support the formation of a unified Palestinian government that has a democratic mandate and a commitment to non-violence and mutual recognition. This government must be capable of establishing "one law, one government, one gun" across all Palestinian territory.

• Security Sector Reform (SSR): The ceasefire must facilitate a process, with international assistance, for the reform and rebuilding of Palestinian security forces to ensure they are the sole authority for law enforcement and internal security in the Palestinian state, while providing long-term security assurances to Israel.

4. International and Regional Guarantees

The ultimate stability of any agreement will depend on external commitment.

• Regional Integration: The process should be framed by a broader regional peace initiative where normalization between Israel and key Arab states is directly conditional upon and parallel to tangible progress toward Palestinian statehood. This gives the region a strategic stake in the success of the peace process.

• Security Guarantees: A permanent agreement must be backed by credible, long-term security assurances for both sides, provided by major global powers (e.g., the U.S. and European nations). These guarantees could take the form of defensive pacts, advanced security technology, or sustained military assistance packages.

III. Conclusion: A Fork in the Road 

The current ceasefire is a window of opportunity, not a guaranteed pathway to peace. It has provided the indispensable first step: a pause in the catastrophic violence. However, a pause is merely an intermission.

For the ceasefire to be more than a temporary truce that resets the cycle of violence, key actors must immediately transition from managing the conflict to resolving the conflict. This demands:

1. Integrating the ceasefire into a robust political framework with a set timeline.

2. Addressing the core issues—statehood, security, and recognition—in a comprehensive manner.

3. Establishing a strong M&V mechanism to enforce compliance and build initial trust.

If the focus remains on limited transactions without this larger political scaffolding, the ceasefire will inevitably collapse, and the region will return to the deadly, familiar cycle of violence. The choice is stark: a temporary pause today or a permanent peace tomorrow. The latter is achievable only through immediate, decisive political commitment to the core issues.

By Jo Ikeji-Uju

https://ubuntusafa.com

https://ubuntusafa.com/Ikeji