Israel-Gaza: “Fragile ceasefire”
2026-01-14 Under the headline ‘Future of the Middle East: Away from conflict and war?’, Prof. Dr. Janina Dill, Professor of Global Security at the University of Oxford, and Prof. Dr. Eckart Woertz, Professor of Middle Eastern Politics at the University of Hamburg, discussed the prospects for peace in the Middle East. The experts remained cautious.
A good five years ago, the signs still pointed to ‘normalisation’: in 2020, Israel signed the so-called Abraham Accords with several Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, in order to break through its isolation in the region.
Today, nothing is ‘normal’ anymore. On 7 October 2023, Hamas attacked Israel, killing over 1,200 people and kidnapping more than 250, many of whom later died in captivity. Israel responded with massive attacks on Gaza, killing tens of thousands of people and destroying infrastructure. Prof. Dr. Tobias Lenz, Professor of International Relations at the Institute of Political Science at Leuphana University, recalled the recent events of this conflict. With Donald Trump's plan to end the Gaza war, there is now a new attempt to bring peace to the Israel-Palestine conflict: since October 2025, a ceasefire brokered by the US has been in place, which aims for a two-state solution in the long term and provides for a reorganisation of the Gaza Strip and the entire region.
Will Donald Trump's plan bring lasting peace between Israel and Gaza? Professor Eckart Woertz remained pessimistic: “The Trump plan has led to a certain calming of the situation, but it is a very fragile ceasefire. Fighting continues.”
For lasting peace, ‘the disarmament of Hamas’ would be necessary, he continued, adding: ‘A technocratic Palestinian government assisted by an international committee and secured by an international security force would be needed. All of this is highly unlikely. A Palestinian civil government is rejected by Israel, not only by the right-wing Netanyahu government, but by the entire Knesset. A two-state solution is also not wanted.’
Professor Janina Dill was also pessimistic: “Gaza is an example of the ongoing collapse of established norms of international law, which are supposed to limit the use of force in international relations and contribute to peaceful conflict resolution. What we have seen over the last two years is an almost total collapse, and the so-called “peace plan” does nothing to change that. On the contrary, it actually signals a further departure from the institutions that were originally established for peaceful conflict resolution, such as the United Nations.”
Although international law fundamentally recognises the right to resist occupation, Hamas' acts of violence on 7 October – in particular attacks on civilians – are clearly war crimes: “This means that 7 October is not a suitable example of the Palestinian right to resistance, which is recognised in international law,” Janina Dill conceded.
Israel's invocation of the right to self-defence was also viewed critically: “If Israel had this right to self-defence – and there are colleagues who argue this – then even from their point of view, Israel's response over the past two years is not covered by the right to self-defence,” said Janina Dill.
During the discussion, it became clear that a military victory over Hamas is considered unrealistic. The organisation is deeply rooted in parts of the population and cannot be defeated by military means alone. Although an Israeli military response after 7 October was to be expected, given the trauma suffered by Israeli society, there is still no convincing post-war political strategy for Gaza.