The “Invisible Front” in Gaza—Hidden Currents Beneath the Ceasefire

Under the shadow of the Strait of Hormuz blockade and fierce clashes between Israel and Hezbollah, Gaza presents a relatively calm picture, but hidden beneath the surface, currents are surging.

On the 9th, the Israel Defense Forces and the Israel National Security Agency jointly issued a statement, saying that the IDF and Shin Bet have recently killed 1 member of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Jihad) and 3 members of the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). The statement said that on the 5th, the IDF and Shin Bet launched an attack, killing Jihad member Abdul Huddari—Huddari took part in the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel and planned attacks targeting IDF units tasked with operations in the northern Gaza Strip. The attack also caused the deaths of 3 Hamas members.

But at the same time, the IDF and Shin Bet said that they are still deploying in accordance with the Israel-Palestine ceasefire agreement, and “will continue to act to eliminate threats that arise at any moment.” This operational pattern of “clearing threats within the framework of the agreement” reflects Israel’s dual-track strategy regarding Gaza: a ceasefire, but not giving up the right to act.

Israel’s military presence in Gaza has by no means ended. Under the ceasefire agreement, Israel should withdraw all of its forces from all Gaza territory after Hamas disarms. But even after Israel reached a ceasefire agreement with Hamas last October, it still controls more than half of the areas, and the prospect of withdrawing troops in the short term remains bleak.

A U.S. think tank, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, analysis noted that what the United States wants is a “victory worth bragging about,” while what Israel wants is “the collapse of the Iranian regime.” One wants to wrap things up, and the other wants to keep the drinks coming. This divergence in strategic goals also exists when it comes to Gaza.

The Gaza ceasefire agreement itself also has inherent flaws. The agreement’s terms are often vague—e.g., the IDF promises to “withdraw to agreed lines” without specifying the boundaries clearly; Hamas demands the release of “all relevant personnel,” while Israel only agrees to “some personnel,” setting the stage for future prevarication. Each side accuses the other of breaching the agreement, forming a chain of suspicion: “who acts first, who is put on the defensive.”

Hamas’s position is also worth noting. Analysis points out that Hamas is still the dominant force in Gaza—“with guns in hand and troops under its command”—but the ceasefire agreement pretends not to see this reality. “It’s not that we forgot to write it; we deliberately didn’t. If we write it, we can’t negotiate; if we don’t, we plant mines.” This “strategic ambiguity” calls into question the long-term stability of the ceasefire. Palestinian analyst Wadi Awad pointed out that Israel did not stop the fighting after achieving a “decisive victory,” and the pressure from voters is immense. If Hamas accepts the ceasefire, it can catch its breath and exchange supplies—but to make them hand over their guns? “Forget it. The four words ‘resistance movement’ are a meal, a signboard, and the reason for its existence. Ceasefires can be discussed, but surrender cannot.”

In a video address, Netanyahu claimed that Israel’s actions against Iran and the “resistance front” have achieved major successes, leading to a historic change in Israel’s status in the Middle East. “Israel is stronger than ever, while Iran is weaker than ever.” This strategic confidence also, to a certain extent, explains why Israel continues to carry out military operations simultaneously on multiple fronts after the ceasefire, including in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria.

It is worth noting that there have been signs of new developments in the Gaza ceasefire in the recent period. Reports say that Hamas has agreed to a new Gaza ceasefire proposal, preserving 98% of the deal framework put forward by U.S. envoy Witkoff in May. The plan calls for an initial 60-day truce. If this development proves true, it will bring new variables to the situation in Gaza. But Israel has not yet issued an official response to this.

Key issues in the ceasefire agreement still remain unresolved. Will Hamas disarm? Who will govern the future of Gaza? These core issues are not clearly written into the text of the agreement, making the ceasefire more like a temporary arrangement for “cooling things down rather than dismantling bombs.” When all sides view the temporary truce as a window to regroup and rearm rather than a starting point for peace, the outlook for peace in Gaza remains full of uncertainty.
#Gate廣場四月發帖挑戰