Regional de-escalation may shift focus to Gaza, where deadlock over Hamas weapons and future governance threatens the ‘ceasefire’.

Save

Share

Gaza City – As fragile ceasefires are in place between the United States and Iran and between Israel and Lebanon, a question is vexing Palestinians in Gaza: Will the de-escalation on other fronts help Israel escalate its military assaults in the enclave or force it to adopt a more cautious path?

Since April 8, the US and Iran have maintained a tense ceasefire after weeks of US-Israeli bombing of Iran and Tehran’s retaliatory strikes on Israel as well as infrastructure and US assets in the Middle East. But Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz and a US blockade on Iranian ports loom large over the region, even as mediator Pakistan tries to bring the two rivals back to the negotiating table.

US President Donald Trump last week said Israel and Lebanon had agreed to extend their ceasefire by three weeks after talks between them were held at the White House to reach a long-term deal, which includes the disarmament of the Iran-backed Hezbollah group, a key Palestinian ally in the region.

The Israel-Lebanon talks excluded Hezbollah as near-daily violations of the truce by Israel continue across southern Lebanon, where Israeli forces have established a “Yellow Line” demarcating the territory they are occupying, like they have done in Gaza. Since March 2 when the latest escalation in fighting between the Israeli military and Hezbollah broke out, more than 2,500 people have been killed in Lebanon and more than a million displaced.

Meanwhile, the Israeli government has indicated its readiness to continue the military operations in Gaza amid a relative calm on other regional fronts, raising fears among Palestinians of the all-out genocidal war returning to haunt them.

The possibility of Israel resuming its assaults on Gaza is seen by some as an option for Israel as guns fall relatively silent on other fronts, but others see a renewed war on Gaza as a pressure tactic by Israel to influence the ongoing negotiations with Iran and Lebanon.

The people in Gaza pointed to two main scenarios: either the calm on the Iran and Lebanon fronts leads Israel to put more pressure on Gaza militarily or regional and global factors could prevent Israel from resuming military operations like those before the October “ceasefire” in Gaza.

Analysts said the path Israel chooses could be decided by Hamas’s stance on Western demands that it disarm as a condition for the implementation of the second phase of the US-backed Israel-Hamas “ceasefire” in Gaza. The second phase includes the formation of a national committee to govern Gaza, a possible deployment of international forces and talks on the future of weapons inside the enclave.

Wissam Afifa, a researcher and journalist specialising in political and strategic analysis, told Al Jazeera the relative calm on the Iranian and Lebanese fronts increases Gaza’s weight in Israeli calculations as reduced multifront attrition “allows for refocusing military and political attention on an unresolved agenda”, including the future governance of Gaza and the fate of Hamas’s weapons.

However, Afifa clarified that this does not automatically mean a move towards a full-scale war but may instead lead to “intensified low-intensity political and security pressures”, especially if Israel sees this approach as achieving “gains at a cost lower than an open war”.

He said his reading aligns with Israel’s continued expansion of control zones within Gaza and Israel’s persistent demands for Hamas’s disarmament as a “central obstacle in the US plan”.

Afifa said an absence of other regional military fronts makes Gaza more exposed to pressure, not less, as reduced tensions elsewhere “free Israeli decision-making space and lower the cost of refocusing efforts on the strip”.

At the same time, Afifa pointed to a “balancing factor”: The international community, particularly the US, may prefer – after pauses in the fighting in Lebanon and Iran – to prevent a new conflagration in Gaza.

In his view, what occurred in Lebanon indicated that Washington “still prefers managing escalation rather than leaving it open”, especially when it fears a broader regional war and its costs. Afifa said he expected the Trump administration to apply the same approach in Gaza.

“It is not necessarily about imposing a fair or final solution but about preventing a major explosion, buying time and pushing parties towards interim arrangements,” he told Al Jazeera.

However, he added that Gaza is a different case because Washington “links political and security progress to the issue of Hamas’s weapons and governance arrangements” in the enclave, making the chances of US pressure on Israel in this situation “more complex”.

Political analyst Ahed Farwana, who specialises in Israeli affairs, said he believes the pause in the wars in Lebanon and Iran has reshuffled priorities within Israel, and Gaza, despite ongoing military operations, has become “secondary” in the global discourse.

Afifa said Hamas linking its disarmament to a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the establishment of a Palestinian state is a “fundamentally strategic move, not merely a negotiating detail”, as it ties weapons to long-term guarantees rather than a mere technical arrangement.

But he also said if the wars in Iran and Lebanon end, there will be more pressure on Hamas because disarmament could become the central issue for Israel and the US in Gaza. Meanwhile, Hamas may also seek to shift the discussion from immediate disarmament to a comprehensive Israeli withdrawal, the reconstruction of Gaza, the question of governance and a broader political deal to “prevent isolating the weapons agenda from the rest of the elements, so it does not appear as an internal political surrender”.

Israel has said its withdrawal depends on Hamas’s disarmament while the group wants any discussions about its weapons to follow a full Israeli withdrawal, the opening of border crossings and Gaza’s reconstruction as conditions laid out in the first phase of the “ceasefire”.

The most likely scenario, according to Afifa, is a “prolonged negotiating stalemate with attempts to launch a gradual track, rather than a quick breakthrough”. Accordingly, partial humanitarian arrangements may emerge, but the “core deadlock will remain deferred until the balance of pressure changes or a new guarantee framework appears”, he said.

Farwana agreed, noting that linking disarmament to other key conditions will only “prolong the crisis” as Israel controls more than 60 percent of Gaza, conducts assassinations and bombardments, and imposes restrictions on aid and the entries and exits of people.

He said the deadlock coincides with an election year in Israel, pushing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avoid “advancing second-phase obligations” and instead trying to prolong the first phase of the “ceasefire” as long as possible.

Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem told Al Jazeera that Israel must “fulfil the terms of the Gaza ceasefire and implement first-phase commitments”, noting that the blockade and killings continue with more than 700 deaths recorded since the start of the so-called truce.

Qassem said Hamas wants to see Israel “build a clear foundation of trust” through a full implementation of the conditions of the first phase before moving to the second. He said Hamas is “capable of taking logical and reasonable approaches within a national consensus” to prevent a return to war as he appealed to mediating nations to ensure the implementation of the first phase of the “ceasefire”.

He criticised linking the implementation to disarmament, calling it “a clear bias towards the Israeli perspective”.

Qassem said the Israeli attacks on Gaza have not stopped and it has carried out an average of five killings a day since the “ceasefire” began.

He added that Israel allows less than a third of the agreed aid to enter Gaza as it continues to block mobile homes, tents and medical supplies from entering the Palestinian enclave, describing the situation as a “massacre in every sense” as rodents swarm the displacement camps and diseases spread.

Qassem warned that Israel has not halted its military policies but rather “distributed them across multiple fronts”, warning that calm elsewhere could lead to intensified operations in Gaza as part of “aggressive and expansionist Israeli policies” led by a far-right government.

He said the threats extend beyond Gaza to the occupied West Bank – where settlers engage in violence and expand settlements, which are illegal under international law – and to Lebanon and Syria, posing a risk to broader Arab security.

Several rounds of talks between a Hamas delegation and United Nations envoy Nikolay Mladenov took place in Cairo in March and this month. Reports indicated the discussions focused on stabilising the “ceasefire”, ensuring implementation of its first phase and addressing humanitarian issues, including aid and border crossings. The talks also addressed a transition to the second phase.

While described as positive at times, the talks have not yielded any breakthrough but have established a negotiation track aimed at sustaining calm while postponing sensitive issues, such as disarming Hamas.

Afifa said recent Israeli statements reflected a mix of pressure to negotiate while keeping war “as an option for deterrence and leverage”. While a war could erupt if talks fail or the deadlock over Hamas’s weapons is not resolved, its human and military costs and the absence of a clear political endgame combined with internal differences in Israel and US pressure could act as constraints.

Farwana said he thinks a return to a full-scale war is unlikely but he fears political pressures on Netanyahu, especially from the far right, could push him towards escalation. For him, an Israeli army exhausted from multiple wars, manpower shortages in the military and debates over extending mandatory reserve service could act as deterrents.

“All these factors make the military establishment reluctant to return to full-scale war, making limited escalation a more likely scenario,” he told Al Jazeera.

Farwana said Gaza needs stronger engagement from Arab and Muslim nations to ensure peace and push towards the implementation of the second phase of the “ceasefire”.

“US President Donald Trump is the only party capable of exerting real pressure on Netanyahu, as seen in Lebanon, but this depends on parallel Arab and Islamic pressure,” he said.