Gaza Bleeds Between Siege and Procrastination: Israel Obstructs Agreement, Washington Accommodates Its Conditions

Washington's Message

Washington – Said Arikat – 24/4/2026

News Analysis

Disagreements are escalating over the future of the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip, after Hamas accused Israel of obstructing the implementation of the first phase of the agreement by linking its humanitarian and security entitlements to the disarmament of the resistance, a step the movement said contradicts the plan announced by US President Donald Trump to end the war on the Strip. This debate reflects the widening gap between the declared texts of the agreement and the realities on the ground, as Israeli occupation army attacks and the siege continue, while humanitarian conditions deteriorate rapidly within the devastated Strip.

Spokesperson for Hamas, Hazem Qassem, stated that conditioning disarmament before completing the commitments of the first phase would complicate negotiations for the second phase, emphasizing the necessity of implementing what was agreed upon first before moving to any subsequent issues. His statements followed meetings held in Cairo last week, which included the head of the movement in Gaza, Khalil al-Hayya, Egyptian officials, international representative Nikolay Mladenov, and US advisor Aryeh Lightstone, in an attempt to push the stalled negotiation process.

According to what was previously announced, the first phase stipulates a ceasefire, a partial Israeli withdrawal, the release of remaining Israeli prisoners in Gaza, and allowing the entry of six hundred aid trucks daily. Hamas states that it has fulfilled its obligations by releasing Israeli prisoners, while Israel has failed to implement its humanitarian commitments and continued its attacks, which have resulted in hundreds killed and thousands injured, in addition to ongoing restrictions on the entry of food, medicine, and fuel.

As for the second phase, it includes a broader withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Strip, the launch of a reconstruction process, and the beginning of addressing the issue of factional weapons within broader political and security arrangements. However, Israel, according to the movement, reversed the order of the clauses and insisted on making disarmament a prerequisite for any withdrawal or reconstruction, which Hamas considers an attempt to extract political gains by force, after the war failed to achieve its declared objectives.

In this context, Qassem described Israeli threats to return to war as tools of negotiating pressure, saying that the war has not actually stopped, given the continued daily killing, the occupation of large parts of the Strip, and the closure of crossings. This coincided with calls by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich to fully reoccupy Gaza and establish settlements there, revealing that an influential current within the government does not view the truce as a path towards settlement, but rather a temporary respite to complete the project of control.

The current crisis reveals that the core of the dispute is not only about weapons, but about the nature of the day after the war. Israel wants Gaza to be politically disempowered before it is disarmed, while Palestinians seek to link any security arrangements to ending the occupation and lifting the siege. Without addressing this structural contradiction, every truce will remain vulnerable to collapse. Security cannot be imposed by force alone, but through a settlement that recognizes national rights and provides the population with a viable political horizon and real, shared regional stability in the future.

Qassem added that Hamas and Palestinian factions held consultations with mediators and guarantor countries over the past two weeks, focusing on implementing the commitments of the first phase and stopping violations, in addition to discussing the second phase, including the weapons issue. However, he considered that the main obstacle lies in Israeli intransigence and linking all paths to this condition, which empties the agreement of its content and turns it into a tool for political and humanitarian blackmail simultaneously.

Among the unimplemented clauses are enabling the National Committee for Gaza Administration to begin its work within the Strip, introducing relief and shelter materials, supporting the health sector, and fully opening the crossings. The committee began its work in Cairo in mid-January, but has not yet been able to move to Gaza, despite the announcement of the completion of logistical and administrative arrangements. The entry of its members requires coordination through crossings under Israeli control, without official clarification of the reasons for the delay.

The obstruction of the National Committee for Gaza Administration reflects an Israeli tendency to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian civil authority capable of managing the Strip after the war. The existence of an organized local administration means a reduction in security pretexts and opens the door to international demands to end the occupation. Therefore, the obstruction appears to be part of a strategy to maintain the vacuum, so that Gaza remains between chaos and guardianship. Moreover, some international parties are content with observation, which encourages Israel to use the crossings as a tool for permanent and systematic daily political control.

On the humanitarian front, Qassem said that the situation is worsening due to the closure of crossings, restricted aid, and daily civilian killings, noting that the Rafah crossing is not operating as stipulated in the agreement. The Palestinian Red Crescent Society announced that only about seven hundred patients have been able to leave Gaza for treatment since the partial reopening of the crossing on February 2, while more than eighteen thousand patients and injured await medical evacuation amid strict Israeli restrictions.

Returnees through Rafah reported being detained and interrogated for long hours before being allowed to pass. Before the war, hundreds of Palestinians crossed daily in both directions as part of a regular mechanism managed by the Ministry of Interior in Gaza in coordination with Egypt, without direct Israeli intervention. However, this reality changed after Israel took control of the Palestinian side of the crossing during the war, imposing strict restrictions on movement, which exacerbated the suffering of patients and the injured and closed the window for external treatment.

The American position shows a stark contradiction between rhetoric and practice. Washington declares support for the truce and improving the humanitarian situation, but it does not exert real pressure to compel Israel to implement what it signed. This hesitation is not explained by inability, but by political calculations that make Israeli interests a fixed priority. The result is that American mediation loses its credibility, while Palestinian civilians pay the price for this bias through hunger, disease, continued bombing, stalled reconstruction, and the absence of effective international accountability so far.

Since launching its war of extermination on Gaza in October 2023, Israeli attacks have resulted in the killing of more than seventy-two thousand Palestinians and the injury of more than one hundred and seventy-two thousand, most of whom are women and children, in addition to the destruction of about ninety percent of the civilian infrastructure. In light of this scene, negotiations appear to be a real test: either compel Israel to implement the agreement, or leave Gaza hostage to an open war with different tools.