Ceasefire Dreams, Strategic Reality: Peace In Gaza Is Still A Pipedream

The announcement of a 20-point ceasefire plan by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has generated more curiosity than conviction. The plan is ambitious. It sketches out a freeze on hostilities, phased hostage exchanges, prisoner releases, Israeli troop withdrawals, the demilitarisation of Hamas, international supervision of Gaza’s governance, and humanitarian reconstruction. On paper, it reads like a roadmap to closure. In practice, it appears rather utopian. It tries to merge irreconcilable interests into a coherent script, a script that collapses under the weight of its own assumptions. Too logical in a conflict where logic applies least.

To understand why this is so, one must look beyond the clauses and examine the strategic intent of the two adversaries locked in this test of will for nearly two years.

Israel’s Strategic Intent
Israel’s declared aim from the outset has been to destroy Hamas’ military and political capacity. Its intent operates at three levels.

At the security level, the October 7 attacks ruptured the myth of Israeli deterrence. The immediate intent is to ensure such a shock can never be repeated. That means obliterating tunnels, rocket stocks, command structures, and neutralising Hamas leadership.

At the political level, Prime Minister Netanyahu is fighting for survival. His coalition depends on projecting toughness; any sign of concession risks political collapse. A ceasefire cannot be presented as compromise, it must look like consolidation of Israeli dominance.

At the regional level, Israel’s deterrence must extend to Hezbollah and Iran’s proxies. The Gaza war is not only about Gaza; it is a warning signal that Israel will retaliate disproportionately to aggression anywhere.

Yet reality intrudes. Hamas retains underground cells, hostages remain unrecovered, and Israel’s deterrence has eroded rather than strengthened. Strategic success remains elusive.

Hamas’s Strategic Intent
For Hamas, the calculus is inverted. Its intent is not to win conventionally but to survive, for survival alone is framed as victory.

The primary intent is organisational continuity. Even shattered, Hamas clings to existence as proof of resilience.

The secondary intent is ideological. Every Palestinian child raised amid ruins becomes, in Hamas’s reckoning, a future soldier of resistance. Israel’s overwhelming response, far from deterring, becomes grist for recruitment.

The regional intent is to outbid the Palestinian Authority and project itself as the authentic voice of resistance. Even diminished, Hamas claims symbolic victory in defying Israel and retaining loyalty across sections of the Arab street.

Thus, while Israel counts destroyed rocket sites and eliminated commanders, Hamas counts persistence itself. It plays a different game with different metrics, which is why Israeli definitions of “final victory” keep receding into the distance. Hamas could well cause ceasefire, if in place, disruptions as a means of projecting moral ascendancy.

Ethics, Morals and the Collapse of Trust
When morality collapses, trust evaporates. Hamas forfeited any ethical standing through the October 7 massacres. Israel has steadily drained its own credibility with indiscriminate bombardments, creating scenes of devastation that global audiences can no longer reconcile with claims of self-defence. Hamas has the empathy of the international community at large, primarily due to its underdog suffering status. This empathy will erode quicker than it can ever be imagined so why would Hamas seek ceasefire.

In any ceasefire, trust is the currency that sustains agreements. Here, it is non existent. Hostage swaps collapse, humanitarian corridors are violated, ceasefires last hours before renewed fire. The 20-point plan assumes compliance where none can be guaranteed. It presumes that Hamas will lay down arms and that Israel will restrain its hand once it holds military advantage. Neither is credible.

The ethics deficit ensures that every clause is vulnerable. If Hamas hides weapons, Israel resumes strikes; if Israel delays withdrawal, Hamas claims betrayal. Without ethics, oversight mechanisms — whether its UN monitors, Arab guarantors, or international coalitions — appear intrusive yet toothless.

This is why the proposal, however detailed, remains a pipedream. It reflects diplomatic neatness, not political or military reality.

The Futility of Final Victory
Israel retains overwhelming firepower but cannot impose permanent control over Gaza without crippling casualties and global isolation. Occupation is politically unsustainable. Hamas cannot defeat Israel conventionally, but its very survival signals strategic endurance. This asymmetry creates an endless loop. Israel destroys, Hamas survives, both claim partial success, neither secures closure.

The lesson is blunt. Wars rooted in identity and legitimacy cannot be ended by force alone. Infrastructure can be demolished, but will regenerates. Each passing month deepens Palestinian victimhood and reinforces Israel’s isolation. Neither side is capable of the “final victory” they profess to seek.

India’s Stakes
For India, Gaza is not remote. Stakes are multiple and intersecting.

Diplomatic positioning comes first. India recognised Palestine as early as 1988, the first major non-Arab country to do so. That legacy binds New Delhi to a principled two-state position. Yet India’s security partnership with Israel — defence technologies, counter-terrorism, intelligence sharing — is indispensable. Any policy must preserve credibility with Palestinians while sustaining Israel ties.

Regional interests are equally vital. Millions of Indian workers in the Gulf, and the oil and gas flows that fuel the Indian economy, depend on regional stability. Prolonged war risks spillover into the Gulf and jeopardises these arteries. Even fragile ceasefires reduce this danger.

Strategic alignments complicate the calculus. The US remains Israel’s unqualified backer, yet Europe is shifting toward Palestinian recognition, while Russia and China position themselves as alternative mediators. India must resist being drawn into one camp. Its foreign policy hallmark in West Asia has been balance — principled on Palestinian rights, pragmatic with Israel, and cooperative with the US and Gulf. That maturity must continue.

The 20-point ceasefire plan appears a diplomatic proposal, not a realistic resolution. Israel cannot claim final victory; Hamas will not disarm; and the trust deficit is absolute. The strategic intent of both sides guarantees deadlock. Israel seeks elimination, Hamas seeks survival, and these objectives cannot be reconciled.

For India, the imperative is not to arbitrate but to balance. West Asia will remain a theatre of shifting alliances, moral ambiguity, and unfinished wars. New Delhi’s Middle East policy has been one of its foreign policy highmarks. It now requires the same commitment and maturity — principled in support of a two-state solution, pragmatic in preserving ties with Israel and the US, and attentive to the Gulf where Indian interests are most exposed.

Peace in Gaza, for now, is still a pipedream. But for India, reading the shifting diplomatic map with clarity may well be the difference between vulnerability and resilience in a volatile region.