The ceasefire agreement reached on October 3, 2025, was a provisional step aiming at de-escalating hostilities in Gaza. It included phased hostage releases, increased humanitarian aid access, and a temporary halt to military operations.
However, within weeks, both sides accused each other of violations beyond unintentional incidents, culminating in Israeli military strikes ordered by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, underscoring the fragile nature of such agreements without deeper diplomatic engagement.
Ceasefires alone are not peace; they are precarious pauses that risk igniting future conflicts if not accompanied by explicit rules of engagement and transparent monitoring mechanisms. Historical patterns in Gaza illustrate this vulnerability.
Since Hamas’ takeover in 2007, multiple ceasefires have collapsed due to contested compliance and unresolved core issues. The June 2008 agreement, intended as a six-month mutual restraint, broke down over rocket fire and border incidents, leading to a two-month Israeli operation at the end of the same year.
Similarly, the November 2012 understanding, brokered by Egypt after eight days of exchanges, held for about 18 months before escalating into the 2014 conflict. The May 2021 truce endured for roughly 16 months, only to unravel in the lead-up to the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks and Israel’s subsequent military response.
These recurrent failures illustrate that the problem lies not in ceasefires themselves but in the lack of adaptive diplomatic frameworks to manage power asymmetries, disagreements over enforcement, and divergent objectives. Sustainable resolution requires considerable trust-building and visionary planning beyond mere cessation of hostilities.
Central to ceasefire breakdowns are the parties’ conflicting priorities. Hamas and aligned factions focus on the Gaza blockade, viewing it as collective punishment, and advancing Palestinian statehood claims.
Israel emphasizes verifiable demilitarization and deterrence of rocket attacks and tunnel incursions, citing existential security needs. Without neutral mediation to enable incremental concessions—such as monitored aid corridors, joint verification, and economic incentives—these positions harden, turning ceasefires into strategic pauses rather than steps toward proper peace.
The 2025 agreement risks similar erosion. While it addresses immediate humanitarian concerns, it defers complex governance issues.
Comparative cases from other prolonged conflicts may provide insights into mitigating such risks. In Northern Ireland, the Provisional Irish Republican Army’s 1994 ceasefire initially faltered amid violence and stalled talks.
Sustained US-led mediation, including civil society involvement and cross-community dialogue, led to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. Key elements included devolution of authority, disarmament protocols, and consent-based sovereignty resolutions, resulting in a 90% reduction in violence over the course of decades.
This suggests that inclusive processes involving non-state actors and external guarantors can build accountability, though adaptations are necessary to account for Gaza’s unique context.
The Bosnian War between 1992 and 1995 offers another cautionary parallel, since 34 ceasefires failed to halt ethnic cleansing and sieges, as parties used lulls to consolidate gains.
The 1995 Dayton Accords, negotiated under US and NATO oversight, imposed a federal structure that divided territory along ethnic lines and mandated the return of refugees and peacekeeping.
While criticized for entrenching divisions and political paralysis, Dayton maintained relative stability and sharply reduced violence for decades. The parallels for Gaza include the potential role for externally enforced territorial arrangements and security guarantees, though caution is advised against partition models that neglect refugee rights and economic integration.
Applying these precedents to the current Gaza truce, a shift from reactive ceasefires to proactive diplomacy confronting structural inequities through verifiable commitments and multilateral oversight is urgently needed.
Without this evolution, the 2025 ceasefire agreement risks becoming another ephemeral pause, perpetuating a status quo detrimental to both Israeli security and Palestinian aspirations.
The expansion of the mediation framework requires renewed involvement by Arab states such as Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey as guarantors and co-enforcers, alongside phased measures, including verifiable adjustments to the blockade and the securing of Hamas’ commitments to non-militarization.
US leadership remains crucial to align incentives and counterbalance spoilers, with regional stakeholders emphasizing the importance of broad buy-in to avoid enforcement vacuums. Yet success depends on realistic assessments of domestic political will and maintaining credible neutrality among external actors.
If tomorrow does not want to be condemned to yesterday’s graves, the international community, having invested in de-escalation, now bears the responsibility to underwrite its endurance.
Eric Alter is a former UN civil servant and dean of a diplomatic academy
