The recent encounter in July 2025 between the U.S. president, Donald Trump, and the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has once more shifted the focus of the entire world to the Gaza crisis. Although diplomatic urgency is demonstrated in such high-profile talks, the failure to convert tempestuous ceasefires into sustainable peace constantly reveals some fundamental structural problems and a trust deficit. That failure is one of failed diplomacy, but more so, it is a realization of the serious lack of policy that will need to be bridged before a lasting solution is ever to be found.

Repeated ceasefires offer only temporary relief without addressing core political issues in Gaza.

Truces between Israel and Hamas have now become monotonous aspects of the conflict, after which violence gains momentum once again. Such negotiations present temporary reliefs, but they never settle the underlying differences. They tend to be reactive and happen because of pressure exacerbated globally to stop war, but are not designed to withstand the political issues.

The entrance of Trump into the diplomatic world and this interaction with Netanyahu have led to the belief that there might be a resurrection of a possible American involvement in the peace of the Middle East region. Such work, however, can turn out to be just a symbolic one unless structural reforms and inclusive negotiations are organized.

The intra-Palestinian divide is one of the most neglected issues, but at the same time, very important. Gaza is led by Hamas, whereas the West Bank is led by the Palestine Authority (PA). Such division implies that, instead of having one partner with whom comprehensive negotiations can take place, Israel and the international mediators are unable to hold talks with a unified Palestinian representative body, which eliminates the legitimacy and sustainability of any agreement.

Any agreement in the absence of political reconciliation between Hamas and the PA is none other than flawed. There is no Palestinian consensus behind ceasefires with Hamas, and this undermines any long-running agreement. The policies of Netanyahu are still to give priority to rapid security instead of finding long-term political solutions. The employment of military power again and the maintenance of the Gaza blockade represent the policy of containment instead of resolution.

Sensitive concerns such as settlement expansion, economic asphyxiation in Gaza, and East Jerusalem status are not addressed. Israel will have to participate in these matters in any sustainable peace-negotiating ceasefires are not enough. An extreme shortage of faith is one of the key factors that make ceasefire deals fail time after time after time. Hamas perceives Israeli negotiation policies as stalling policies, whereas Israel says that Hamas is a violent party whose essence is improper to change.

The Palestinian split between Hamas and the PA undermines the legitimacy of peace negotiations.

Since each party sees the other as being unreliable, the agreements that are reached are limited in nature, and most of the time they can be based on prisoner and border exchange, or humanitarian assistance, without fixing the source of the conflict. Although other countries such as the U.S., Egypt, and Qatar have mediated past conflicts, they engage in episodic and interest-led manners. Such a discrepancy complicates establishing trust or introducing long-term peace structures. As much as the Trump-Netanyahu meetings made headlines, any such events without a wider, multilateral, and sustained approach may turn into a mere photo opportunity rather than a substantial intervention.

The new models of conflict resolution needed in the situation in Gaza surpass the usual traditional diplomacy because this place presents a unique political reality in which the state and even non-state actors are entrenched. Instead of defining ceasefires as the milestones, policymakers need to view them as the beginning of further talks. Each agreement should be bound up in a wider context of economic recovery, political reform, and humanitarian access to make them more sustainable.

The Trump-Netanyahu conferences have only rekindled the world in Gaza, but interest is not sufficient. Structural malfunctions, political fissures, and a virtually complete lack of trust are deeply rooted issues responsible but never studied deeply enough and are out of fashion in policymaking, as the failure to translate ceasefires into peace continues, on and on.

Netanyahu’s focus on security and blockade policies favors containment over long-term resolution.

The key to turning a short-lived hope of peace into reality lies in the minds of the people who are usually the driving force behind any change that is made. To scale this up, both scholars and policymakers must re-conceptualize the way they think of the Gaza conflict, not a conflict in need of management as part of some inherent cycle of violence, but a circumstance in need of resolution.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.