A temporary halt in the long-standing conflict between Israel and Palestine has been met with a wave of cautious optimism and profound skepticism. While the pause in violence offers a brief respite to the beleaguered residents of Gaza, many observers and analysts question the long-term viability of the peace plan, citing deep-rooted historical grievances and the glaring power imbalance between the two sides.
According to an opinion piece by Abdul Khalik in The Jakarta Post, the recent ceasefire has been framed in a way that elicits sympathy for the Israeli government merely for pausing the slaughter. Khalik argues that the devastating actions of the Israeli government and military have created a situation where any cessation of violence, however brief, is seen as a major concession. The article highlights the lopsided nature of the peace process, noting that the current 20-point plan was drafted with significant involvement from the United States, but without the presence of Palestinian representatives. This has led to a proposal that, in the eyes of many, formalizes many of Israel's long-standing demands while offering the Palestinians little more than the promise of economic aid and limited autonomy.
The so-called peace plan has been described as a tightly packaged narrative that casts Israel as a besieged democracy and the Palestinians as either a security problem or supplicants for economic aid. In practice, the plan appears to formalize many of Israel’s long-standing demands, including control over strategic territory, a securitized arrangement for any Palestinian entity, and the cementing of Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital. In contrast, the Palestinians are offered a mere promise of economic development and administrative autonomy, stripped of any real sovereignty.
From the perspective of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this arrangement is seen less as a compromise and more as a vindication of his government's policies. It provides political cover for expansionist aims while recasting the denial of Palestinian rights as a rational and necessary measure. This approach has been likened to a strategy of coercive control, a concept typically used to describe dynamics in domestic abuse, but here applied to statecraft. This framework suggests a continuous choreography of domination that includes surveillance, restriction of movement, deprivation of resources, and humiliation, all designed to make resistance seem futile and to enforce a state of dependence.
The international community remains divided. While some nations have praised the ceasefire as a crucial first step toward a lasting peace, others have been more critical, pointing to the historical context of failed agreements and the consistent undermining of the two-state solution. Pro-Palestinian groups and activists, in particular, have expressed deep reservations, arguing that any plan that does not address the core issues of sovereignty, self-determination, and human rights is doomed to fail. As the people of Gaza emerge from the rubble to survey the destruction, the world watches and waits, hoping for a lasting peace but fearing a return to the cycle of violence that has defined this conflict for decades.