The deadlock in Gaza ceasefire negotiations underscores the grim reality of a conflict where humanitarian considerations remain secondary to political leverage. While proposals for extending the fragile truce continue to emerge, the refusal of both Israel and Hamas to compromise on key demands reflects a deeper problem: an entrenched cycle of mistrust and zero-sum bargaining. The current impasse may well prolong the suffering of millions of civilians already devastated by months of war. The United States’ attempt to mediate an extension of the ceasefire offered a temporary lifeline. The proposal aimed to secure the release of remaining hostages and prisoners, while allowing humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza’s shattered landscape.

Yet, the negotiations have stumbled over two central issues ~ Isra el’s military presence in Gaza and the release terms for hostages and prisoners. Hamas demands a full Israeli troop withdrawal, while Israel insists on maintaining pressure through its continued blockade and military operations. Each side accuses the other of intransigence, and both appear to believe time will strengthen their res – pective positions. The tragedy is that the people of Gaza, many of whom have been displaced multiple times, are caught in this geopolitical stalemate. With over 90 per cent of homes damaged or destroyed and essential services like water, electricity, and healthcare nearly nonexistent, the humanitarian crisis has reached catastrophic proportions.

Advertisement

Aid convoys remain sporadic and insufficient, largely because humanitarian access is frequently tied to the status of ceasefires. As a result, innocent civilians are forced to endure hunger, illness, and displacement while political leaders debate terms. The argument that Hamas is making “impractical” demands is mirrored by the group’s accusations that Israel is manipulating the talks. Both claims may hold degrees of truth, but they do little to address the growing humanitarian cost. If the two sides persist in using hostages and humanitarian aid as bargaining chips, a longterm resolution will remain elusive. Worse, the lack of meaningful progress only fuels resentment and radicalisation, making future negotiations even harder.

The current ceasefire framework offers a narrow window of opportunity. Negotiators should focus on achievable, incremental steps that prioritise the immediate welfare of civilians rather than maximalist political aims. For instance, a mutual agreement on a phased withdrawal, monitored by neutral parties, could build trust. Similarly, a humanitarian corridor managed independently could ensure that aid is not used as a weapon. Ultimately, sustainable peace requires both sides to shift from a zero-sum mindset to one that values coexistence and mutual security. This may seem utopian in the current climate, but incremental trust-building measures are the only realistic path forward. Without them, the cycle of violence, retribution, and humanitarian catastrophe will continue, devastating generations on both sides of the divide. The time to act is now. Any further delay only deepens the wounds of a war that has already gone on for far too long.