Too big to fail Israel- Gaza, the days after
Anticipation or Fiction
A Ceasefire Without a day-after — or a De Facto Partition
The visit of US Vice President J.D. Vance to Israel was presented as a key moment in the stabilization process for Gaza. Officially, Washington is celebrating: Donald Trump hails it as “a historic dawn for the Middle East.” On the ground, however, the reality is far less radiant. Ceasefire violations keep multiplying, and the return of the remains of all hostages remains unresolved.
Prepared by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Vance’s visit was meant to be reassuring. So far, it offers little more than surface-level optimism: “Things are going better than I hoped,” he declared — but there is still no timetable, no tangible guarantees on the ground.
The “Day After” — Fiction or Forecast?
The US peace plan rests on three pillars:
- The disarmament of Hamas,
- The creation of an international stabilization force,
- The gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces into a buffer zone.
On paper, the equation seems straightforward. In practice, everyone is anxious to see what will follow. No power, except Indonesia with its proposed 20,000 troops, has agreed to participate in the multinational force. Washington struggles to persuade other partners, lacking both a UN mandate and a credible operational framework. The Gulf states, despite numerous statements, have made no troop commitments — understandably so, since no one wants to confront Hamas directly. Israel refuses any Turkish involvement, wary of Ankara’s ideological closeness to the Muslim Brotherhood. And doubts persist about Qatar, the Janus-faced ally that alternates between Hamas, Washington — where the US maintains its largest Middle East base — and Israel.
The United States has made one thing clear: no American boots will set foot in Gaza.
The situation remains frozen. Violations continue, as do the summary executions of Hamas opponents — a sign that the group has regained strength. Some observers already see this as a dangerous status quo, one that contradicts the original 21-point plan.
The Mirage of a “New Gaza”
Bound by its alliance with Benjamin Netanyahu, the White House rejects any initiative that could strengthen the Palestinian Authority. The result is a vicious cycle of paralysis. Recent Knesset votes hinting at the possible annexation of Judea and Samaria directly contradict the current US stance and are likely to trigger new tensions between Jerusalem and Washington. The Vice President even said he felt “insulted” by those votes. Meanwhile, far-right Israeli parties, through inflammatory statements — including toward Saudi Arabia — are adding further strain to US–Israeli relations.
Vance has even floated the idea of a “New Gaza” — areas rebuilt, cleared of Hamas fighters, controlled by the IDF, and presented as models of normality.
In reality, the Israeli military seems determined to create a fully controlled zone corresponding to this “New Gaza.” Moreover, US negotiators reportedly opened direct communication with certain Hamas leaders.
It’s a project that looks more like territorial rebranding than political resolution:
“The ‘New Gaza’ would be an even smaller enclave, reserved for the few — managed, but with no diplomatic horizon and no sovereignty.”
A Humanitarian Stalemate
On the ground, humanitarian conditions remain dire. Only two border crossings are open — none to the north, where needs are critical. The Gulf states issue statements but exert no real pressure on Israel. The UN is pushing to reestablish UNRWA operations in Gaza, something Israel categorically refuses.
Washington, wary of clashing with Jerusalem, is stalling for time. And as Israel heads into its 2026 election season, comforted by the return of surviving hostages, major decisions will again be postponed.
If reconstruction begins only in areas under full Israeli control, the ceasefire risks freezing the conflict — institutionalizing a fragmented and tutelary Gaza. Meanwhile, President Trump, speaking of “disarmament,” has hinted at the possible removal of only “heavy weapons.” A puzzling statement — since that would leave Hamas’ arsenal largely intact.
Peace as a Political Mirror – Too Big to Fail
Donald Trump is betting big. After Ukraine, he’s turning to the Middle East to showcase himself as a man of peace. But beneath the rhetoric, the challenge is daunting. While Washington’s engagement marks a turning point — especially in countering Iran — the language of peace has yet to produce a viable roadmap.
The US remains perceived as a partisan mediator. Israel acts with increasing autonomy, while Palestinians have little faith in a process conducted without them.
It also emerged that President Trump has “given himself extra time” to decide whether Marwan Barghouti should be released — viewing him as the only credible Palestinian leader capable of negotiation. The administration is now assessing whether this gamble could be the ace up its sleeve to restart the peace process.
Meanwhile, domestic pressure mounts. The “No Kings” protests in the US underscore Trump’s quest for a symbolic foreign-policy triumph. Gaza was meant to be that trophy.
But as weeks go by, turning the ceasefire into real peace seems increasingly difficult. Without wanting to sound pessimistic, one fears that the “day after” could become just another “day before” — endlessly repeating, with no progress toward peace, war, or hope.
Making a deal
We also learn that President Trump is “giving himself a little extra time” (gotta love that phrasing) to decide whether Marwan Barghouti should be released or not, seeing him as the only potential Palestinian leader truly emerging from the current chaos. Which implicitly means… one with whom it might actually be possible to make a deal. The president’s team now has to assess whether this is the right move—and whether it could be the ace up the White House’s sleeve to revive the peace process. For President Trump, it’s the defining wager of his term.
This is our world.
