Several weeks after the signing of the Gaza peace accord, the region remains trapped in uncertainty, as Israel’s partial compliance and the delayed deployment of international peacekeepers raise doubts about the accord’s credibility. Though Israel secured the release of its captives from Hamas, its continued military presence in Gaza and the absence of Qatari and Egyptian monitors have rendered the truce fragile and incomplete.
When the ceasefire was first announced, it was hailed as a breakthrough achieved through the joint efforts of the United States, Qatar, Egypt, and several Muslim nations; yet subsequent developments—particularly Israel’s parliamentary decision to annex the West Bank—have challenged both the letter and spirit of the agreement. The move drew widespread criticism from world capitals, including Washington and Brussels, but beyond diplomatic statements, no tangible pressure has been applied to ensure adherence to international law.
In the months that followed, nearly a hundred Palestinians lost their lives in renewed Israeli operations, casting a shadow over any hope of lasting peace. Public sentiment across the West has also shifted notably: in late 2023, U.S. surveys showed 35 percent support for Israel and 24 percent for Palestinians, but recent figures now reveal an exact reversal—reflecting the growing impact of civilian suffering and global media coverage of Gaza’s destruction.
The erosion of humanitarian norms and the selective application of international law have placed the credibility of global institutions under strain. Israel’s ongoing occupation, annexation of land, and targeting of civilian areas contravene both the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions, yet enforcement remains elusive, exposing a troubling double standard.
For the United States, as a principal guarantor of the Gaza accord, this represents a diplomatic dilemma—balancing strategic partnership with moral responsibility. Continued unconditional support for Israeli policies threatens to weaken Washington’s global standing as an impartial broker. A recalibrated approach—conditioning aid on compliance, supporting independent investigations, and coordinating with European and regional partners—could help restore balance and credibility.
Meanwhile, the Muslim world must move beyond rhetoric toward collective diplomatic action: coordinated UN engagement, targeted reconstruction efforts for Gaza, and principled review of bilateral ties with Israel would demonstrate seriousness of purpose.
The Gaza accord, envisioned as a foundation for peace, now stands as a test of international resolve. The European Union’s deliberations on economic sanctions underscore growing impatience, but real change will depend on unity of action, not symbolic resolutions. Israel today stands at a crossroads—between cooperation and isolation—and its choices will shape not only the region’s future but also the global order’s faith in justice, accountability, and the rule of law.