Why Israel Seeks a Temporary Gaza Truce To Keep Its Genocide Going
By Qassem Qassem – Jul 20, 2025
Behind the talk of calm, Tel Aviv is redrawing Gaza’s borders, displacing its population, and laying the groundwork for permanent control, one truce at a time.
Twenty-one months into its brutal campaign against the Gaza Strip, Israel is again mulling a temporary ceasefire with the Palestinian resistance. Two brief truces have already collapsed into renewed bloodshed.
But is the genocidal war really coming to a close? This question looms over the proposed truce, raising doubts about whether Israel seeks an end, or simply a pause before its next assault.
This time, mediations led by Qatar and the US, with Egypt playing a minor role, are pushing for a 60-day cessation of hostilities. The deal hinges on a pledge from US President Donald Trump to extend the truce if talks progress.
Tel Aviv’s day-after plans for Gaza
These negotiations reflect a deeper shift in the occupation state’s security doctrine. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly declared his intention to reshape Gaza’s future beyond a temporary lull in fighting.
He insists on disarming the resistance, dismantling Hamas’s authority and control, and eliminating any future threat from the besieged enclave. In Tel Aviv’s vision for the “day after,” there is not even a role for the collaborative Palestinian Authority (PA) in the Strip.
At most, Israel may tolerate an occupation state-backed militia resembling the Yasser Abu Shabab group or deploy Arab security forces to support local merchants or clans in governing Gaza – until the PA is “reformed” to Washington’s satisfaction, with Israel maintaining overarching security and military control.
This plan dovetails with the long-standing aspiration of Israel’s far-right government to re-establish illegal settlements in northern Gaza. Netanyahu is lobbying his army to construct a “tent city” in Rafah to forcibly relocate 600,000 Palestinians, a blatant demographic engineering scheme.
The 60-day truce proposal includes a phased Israeli withdrawal from west to east, a halt to air raids, permission for food and humanitarian aid entry, and a prisoner exchange. Unlike previous ceasefires, Trump’s involvement is being marketed as a guarantee that the occupation forces will not resume attacks once the deadline expires – as they did immediately after the March truce.
Yet despite signs of possible relief for Gaza’s starving and besieged population, Israel still believes it has not achieved its core objective: dismantling Hamas. One unnamed Israeli official was recently quoted as saying: “The flexibility we’ve shown paves the way for an agreement, but Netanyahu clearly doesn’t intend to end the war.”
Any upcoming truce is thus likely a pause to prepare the battlefield for the next round. Still, renewed war could prove challenging given the limits of the occupation army and the deepening cracks in its society.
Reconstruction as leverage and the Morag corridor ploy
As part of ongoing pressure, anti-resistance forces are using Gaza’s reconstruction as leverage. Israel has floated a deceptive offer to allow Qatari and international funds into Gaza during the truce, which is an attempt to lure Hamas into believing the war is truly ending. This is, in reality, a calculated deception by Israel to manufacture the illusion of an approaching end to war and draw Hamas into a false sense of security.
According to a report on 10 July by Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel has “tentatively agreed” to Qatari participation in rebuilding the Strip, provided it does not monopolize the process. Other states are expected to co-fund reconstruction to prevent funds from reaching Hamas, although Saudi Arabia and the UAE have made their commitment to Gaza’s reconstruction conditional on the war’s conclusion.
A major sticking point is Israel’s new “Morag Corridor,” carved between Khan Yunis and Rafah to replicate the Philadelphia Corridor separating Gaza from Egypt. Much like the Netzarim axis that once bisected the Strip, the Morag route is presented by Israel as vital for its security. Tel Aviv plans to use the corridor to isolate the Rafah tent city from northern Gaza—effectively creating a walled-off holding zone for displaced Palestinians.
Palestinian resistance factions have flatly rejected this scheme. Not only does it violate Palestinian sovereignty, but it would turn Gaza into a cluster of disconnected, besieged cantons, with Israel occupying nearly 40 percent of the territory.
On 14 July, Netanyahu’s government submitted a third withdrawal map to mediators. Leaks reveal that Israeli forces plan to remain in a 900-meter belt near Beit Hanoun and a 3.5-kilometer strip east of Rafah. In a post on X, Kan political correspondent Gili Cohen, citing sources familiar with the negotiations, said that Israel is now showing “flexibility” on broader withdrawals from Rafah and the Morag axis.
But Rafah remains the core obstacle to any deal. Israel insists on cramming 600,000 Palestinians into the southern city, either to push them into Egypt, where alarm over Israeli designs is mounting, or force them toward the sea. Tel Aviv and Washington are actively probing third countries to receive Gaza’s expelled population.
Hamas: No Partial Truce, Only Comprehensive Deal With War-Ending Guarantees Acceptable
A tactical pause, not a peace plan
Netanyahu’s real goal is to secure strategic gains for the post-war phase. During his visit to Washington earlier this month, he sought a written US assurance that would allow Israel to resume its war, even under a formal ceasefire.
He plans to wield this assurance as political cover at home, particularly to placate extremist coalition partners like Itamar Ben Gvir (Jewish Power) and Bezalel Smotrich (Religious Zionism), who demand total war and Hamas’ annihilation.
Netanyahu’s envoy and strategic affairs minister Ron Dermer put it bluntly in a 14 July podcast interview with US columnist and political advisor Dan Senor:
“Right now, what we’re trying to do is get to a ceasefire … the minimum requirement is that the force responsible for the Oct. 7 attack is no more. They have lost control of Gaza due to their decision to act.”
According to Walla News, Netanyahu convinced Trump to delay the agreement by an additional week—bringing the timeline closer to the end of the Knesset’s summer session (late July). The paper noted that Trump is “tired of the war,” but Netanyahu managed to buy time, though what he offered in return remains unclear.
The proposed truce cannot be viewed in isolation from Israel’s broader strategy. Far from signaling the war’s end, it is a calculated intermission. Tel Aviv seeks to redraw Gaza’s demographic and security map, while Hamas focuses on regrouping and fortifying its battlefield presence.
Netanyahu’s recent moves prove that this is no pursuit of peace. What Israel wants is a lull long enough to dismantle Hamas’ political infrastructure, impose buffer zones, and reengineer the population through its “tent city” blueprint.
Palestinian affairs analyst Michael Milstein mocked Tel Aviv’s “day after” vision in a 13 July column in Yedioth Ahronoth, arguing that Gaza has become a constant testing ground for flimsy Israeli schemes that collapse shortly after being proposed. He described Israel’s latest military campaign as a “ferocious effort devoid of dramatic gains,” noting that its aggression in northern Gaza ahead of the last ceasefire produced no lasting achievements. These include past attempts to build isolated ‘bubbles’ of alternate governance in Gaza, and the so-called ‘Generals’ Plan,’ which failed to yield results even amid heavy attacks in the north. He pointed to the long record of failed experiments, from the village leagues in the West Bank, to the occupation’s backing of the Kataeb militias in Lebanon, to the eventual collapse of the South Lebanon Army. These models, he wrote, reflect a deeply flawed understanding of reality, rooted in the belief that brute military force can compel Hamas to disarm, surrender, or abandon Gaza entirely.
He noted two competing camps inside Israel: one that seeks phased withdrawal while postponing Hamas’ fate, and another pushing for full reoccupation based on the racist logic that “Arabs are only deterred by losing land” and that “settlements prevent terrorism.”
Rather than a moment of transition, this seems to be a continuation of Israel’s campaign by other means. So long as Tel Aviv avoids a political reckoning for its war on Gaza, every ceasefire will be a battlefield in disguise. Between a fleeting truce and a deepening occupation, Gaza stands today at a decisive crossroads — one where the illusion of peace masks a relentless colonial project.
Kassem is a Palestinian journalist, he worked for the Lebanese Al-Akhbar newspaper for 15 years, specializing in Palestinian and Israeli affairs.
