Nournews: October 7, 2023, has been etched into the political memory of the Middle East as a decisive day — the day when the Al-Aqsa Storm rose from the besieged Gaza Strip and shook Israel’s security structure to its core.
Although the operation inflicted heavy military losses on both sides, its meaning went far beyond the battlefield. For the first time in decades, the Palestinians managed to seize the initiative in a war that had always been presumed lost from the start.
In that sense, the Al-Aqsa Storm was not merely a military attack — it was a declaration of a renewed existence, an assertion of the “right to live.”
In the two years that followed, Gaza was almost reduced to rubble: thousands martyred, infrastructure destroyed, and millions displaced. Yet, in parallel, Israel’s global image — built over more than seventy years — sustained serious cracks. A state that sought to display its might ended up revealing its inability to control a narrow strip of land.
Now, in global public opinion, the equation has shifted. The Palestinian cause has once again returned to the “moral conscience of humanity,” and this, in itself, marks part of the Al-Aqsa Storm’s moral victory.
Trump’s plan and the diplomacy of resistance: From ceasefire to reconstruction
The agreement that Donald Trump described on Friday morning as “the end of the Gaza war” is, more accurately, the start of a new and ambiguous phase of diplomacy. According to the initial announcement, the deal includes a halt to hostilities, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, prisoner exchanges, and the entry of humanitarian aid. However, there is no reference to two highly sensitive issues — the disarmament of the resistance and Gaza’s future political structure.
For that reason, analysts call it “the first stage of Trump’s plan,” the details of whose second and third phases remain unclear.
It seems that the United States and several Western governments are seeking to use “reconstruction leverage” to shape Gaza’s political future — meaning that financial and technical aid for rebuilding would be conditional upon accepting certain political reforms in Gaza’s governing structure.
On the other hand, Hamas views the ceasefire as a “strategic pause” — an opportunity to restore its capabilities, reorganize internally, and consolidate its political legitimacy.
In other words, the battle now continues not on the battlefield, but in the realm of politics and legitimacy — where every concession could determine the fate of resistance or the continuation of occupation.
The Post-Peace Horizon: Fragile Order and the Test of Legitimacy
Although the war has stopped, peace has yet to be established. The core issue now is: who will govern Gaza after such massive devastation and the loss of essential infrastructure? Will the Palestinian Authority return under U.S. sponsorship, or will Hamas remain the central actor in Gaza’s administration?
Some analyses suggest that the U.S. and Israel are attempting to create a multi-layered structure — one in which Hamas is weakened but not eliminated, resembling a “joint security management” model that is neither true peace nor open war.
Meanwhile, internal Palestinian unity — emphasized by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, and independent groups alike — remains the key to any successful agreement. Without national consensus, any externally imposed deal will quickly collapse.
At the same time, Israel faces its own internal crisis — divisions within the ruling coalition and growing public pressure. Netanyahu, whose political survival depends on crisis, may resist fully implementing the agreement or provoke new tensions to reassert himself as a “security leader.”
On the international stage, Washington confronts a dual challenge: on one hand, it needs a diplomatic achievement to showcase during an election year; on the other, it cannot ignore global outrage over Gaza’s humanitarian catastrophe. This contradiction makes the implementation path fragile and uncertain.
Future scenarios: Three possible paths for Gaza
Gaza’s future now oscillates among three potential scenarios:
A) Consolidation of resistance:
In this scenario, Hamas preserves its political and military structure and becomes part of Gaza’s governing body or administrative council. This path implies the acceptance of resistance as a legitimate governing force and could lead to a “deterrent balance” between Gaza and Tel Aviv.
B) Gradual containment:
Agreements are implemented in stages without ever reaching a final peace. Gaza becomes a semi-autonomous zone under international supervision and Israeli security oversight — a model that creates the illusion of stability while, in practice, perpetuating occupation in a new form.
C) Controlled reconstruction:
In this model, Gaza’s rebuilding is undertaken by Western and Arab states with the goal of politically engineering Palestinian society. Financial aid becomes a means of pressure to steer Gaza’s political structure toward a Western-preferred form of statehood. This scenario poses the greatest threat to the identity of resistance.
Yet across all three paths, one truth remains unchanged: without Palestinian unity, without genuine public participation in decision-making, and without a redefinition of national legitimacy, no agreement will endure.
NOURNEWS