The latest round of ceasefire negotiations in Gaza has collapsed under the weight of impossible terms, tightening Israeli violations, and a humanitarian catastrophe that is worsening by the hour. Media headlines treat Hamas’s rejection of the ceasefire proposal as obstinacy or political posturing. But the reality is more intricate, more tragic, and more rooted in the unending assault that has consumed Gaza for more than a year. A ceasefire negotiated from beneath the rubble, under drones and artillery, can never be a path to peace. It is merely a demand that the occupied accept the logic of their occupier.

What unfolds in Gaza today is not simply a military conflict but the systematic destruction of a people. According to UN agencies, the death toll has crossed 41,000, with nearly 70 percent of the victims being women and children. More than 13,000 children have been killed—numbers that stagger the human imagination. Israel has bombed hospitals, aid convoys, UN shelters, desalination plants, sewage networks, and bakeries. Around 80 percent of Gaza’s population has been displaced, many of them multiple times, pushed from one decimated corner to another. In such a reality, a ceasefire deal that fails to guarantee dignity, safety, and sovereignty is not a ceasefire at all. It is a temporary pause in a longer campaign.

To understand why Hamas rejected the proposal, we must understand the proposal itself. Israel insisted on holding the power to re-enter any area of Gaza at will, even during supposed calm. It demanded the right to continue drone surveillance, detain anyone they wished, and refuse the return of displaced families to northern Gaza. It refused to commit to a full withdrawal of troops or to a pathway for long-term political rights. In effect, Israel wanted a ceasefire in which it controls everything—movement, territory, reconstruction, population flow, policing—while offering Palestinians only a momentary reduction in bombing. No movement on prisoners, no definitive end to hostilities, no meaningful reconstruction framework, and no political horizon. It is difficult to imagine any Palestinian, factional or civilian, risking acceptance of such terms. 

Khalid Meshal was unequivocal when he cautioned that the “Momentum on cease fire talks may decline as the first phase comes to a conclusion”. You cannot have Israel brazenly unleash atrocities while........

© Middle East Monitor