The thin line between explosion and détente in Gaza

Ammon

03-06-2025

The Witkoff Plan is one of the most prominent international initiatives proposed to halt the devastating war on the Gaza Strip, which has entered its final months amid profound political, military, and humanitarian complications. While the plan came in response to mounting international pressure, particularly from the Trump administration, the positions of both Israel and Hamas have ranged from conditional acceptance to cautious rejection. This makes the future of this plan contingent on a set of complex internal, regional, and international equations, and makes studying possible scenarios a matter of strategic importance.
The Witkoff Plan, proposed under US sponsorship and led by President Donald Trump and his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, aims for a temporary ceasefire in Gaza for 60 days, with US guarantees, as a prelude to reaching a permanent agreement. It stipulates the release of 10 living Israeli hostages and 18 bodies from a list of hostages, in exchange for the release of 125 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences and 1,111 detainees from Gaza, in addition to the handover of 180 Palestinian bodies.
The plan includes a cessation of Israeli military operations, a restriction of military air traffic, and the redeployment of Israeli forces northward and then southward, according to agreed-upon maps. It also stipulates the entry of humanitarian aid under the supervision of the United Nations and the Red Crescent. Negotiations on a permanent ceasefire will begin on the first day of the truce, and will address the exchange of the remaining hostages, redeployment, security arrangements, and the "day after" for Gaza. If an agreement is not reached within the deadline, the truce can be extended under agreed-upon terms. The plan includes mediation and guarantees from the United States, Qatar, and Egypt, with direct oversight from President Trump, who will officially announce the agreement. The Israeli scene is suffering from a sharp internal division between a security faction that favors accepting the plan as a political solution that saves Israel's face, and a hard-line right-wing faction that rejects any truce before the complete elimination of the "military threat from Hamas."
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finds himself between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, he fears that accepting the plan will lead to the collapse of his government under pressure from the extreme right, which threatens to withdraw. On the other hand, he faces increasing American pressure, in addition to internal demonstrations by the families of the hostages, who accuse his government of stalling and sacrificing their sons for narrow political calculations. Israel, in its strategic depth, fears that accepting the plan will be perceived as a political and military defeat against a beleaguered resistance movement, and that the scenario following the 2006 Lebanon War will be repeated, when Hezbollah emerged with increasing political and popular influence despite human and material losses.
In contrast, Hamas, despite the severe blows it has suffered, retains a negotiating position based on its remaining Israeli hostages and its ability to withstand the war machine. Hamas expressed initial acceptance of the plan, but stipulated that it include a permanent ceasefire, a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip, the release of all Palestinian prisoners, and a rejection of any Israeli military or security presence inside the Strip.
It also stipulated the need for Gaza's reconstruction under Arab and international supervision. These demands reflect the movement's desire to transform the results of the war into political gains that will enable it to maintain its role in the Palestinian arena, especially in light of talk of future arrangements that may include the return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza or the formation of a new administration for the Strip with regional participation. In light of these facts, three main scenarios for the future of the Witkoff plan can be envisioned. The first scenario involves conditional mutual acceptance of the plan, whereby some of its provisions are modified to bring the positions closer together, and a gradual implementation phase begins under international supervision, with American and regional guarantees. This scenario is possible, but it requires internal consensus within Israel and effective pressure from Washington on the Netanyahu government.
It also requires Hamas's tacit acceptance of the phased solution without compromising its basic conditions. The second scenario is that Israel refuses to implement the second phase of the plan after the release of some hostages, leading to the collapse of the agreement and the resumption of fighting. This scenario reflects the nature of the divisions within the Israeli government and could lead to a domestic political crisis and increased public pressure. However, it could also serve Netanyahu in gaining more time and avoiding the collapse of his coalition.
The third, and most bleak, scenario is the complete failure of the plan, either due to the refusal of one party or the collapse of international understandings, leading to the continuation of the war and its transformation into a protracted war of attrition. In this scenario, the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza would worsen, and Arab and international popular anger against Israel would expand. Other regional parties might also become more involved, threatening to escalate the situation on other fronts, such as southern Lebanon or the West Bank. In this scenario, the United States would find itself in an extremely difficult position before the world.
The Witkoff Plan, despite its political ambition and humanitarian dimensions, collides with an extremely complex reality, rendering its chances of success limited without comprehensive agreements and painful concessions from both sides. This seems unlikely given each side's adherence to its own narrative and objectives. At the same time, however, the plan could constitute a preliminary framework upon which to build to reduce the intensity of the conflict and open a window for negotiations, should genuine international support and political will transcend narrow calculations be available. Between rejection and acceptance, Gaza's future remains suspended on a thin line between explosion and détente.