Is Israel really ready to withdraw from Gaza?

By Sophie Naimi · Reporting from Paris · August 1, 2026

It is always like this, isn't it?

The Unbearable Weight of a Peace Plan Written in Washington

It is always like this, isn't it? A grand announcement from an external power—a US-brokered peace plan, delivered by Donald Trump, promising the end of conflict and the establishment of a new Palestinian government. ABC News reported that Hamas has agreed to disarm and Israel will withdraw as part of a 20-point roadmap. On paper, it sounds like closure: an actionable plan for relinquishing weapons in exchange for withdrawal and aid. But anyone with even a passing knowledge of history, or indeed, the basic physics of power dynamics, knows this is merely another geopolitical settlement designed to manage conflict, not resolve injustice. The moment we accept such deals as "critical steps," we are complicit in repeating cycles of dispossession.

When Ideology Outweighs Humanity

The immediate reaction from within Israel itself reveals the rot at the core of this supposed accord. While France 24 reported on Hamas agreeing to provisions for gradual withdrawal, the Israeli political establishment has largely dismissed it as politically convenient fiction. The far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir denounced the deal as "unacceptable," warning that any compromise is tantamount to accepting future violence. Similarly, former chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot stated that any agreement falling short of the total destruction of Hamas’s power was a failure. Even academic observers like Dahlia Scheindlin argue that Netanyahu's considerations have nothing to do with public trauma from October 7th, but everything to do with keeping his fragile coalition intact. The consensus among the skeptics is clear: this deal does not match the reality on the ground.

A History of Imposed Ultimata

We must look beyond the diplomatic fanfare and examine the mechanism at play. This pattern—the external power mandates a settlement, which local elites reject because it undermines their core grievances—is tragically predictable. It echoes the Suez Crisis of 1956. In that instance, Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt to regain control of the Canal after Nasser had nationalized it. The shared mechanism is undeniable: an external power imposes a settlement via ultimatum, which local national elites reject because the proposed terms negate their sovereignty and self-determination. We are watching history repeat itself, where the promise of "peace" from Washington merely serves to re-establish control over strategic assets, leaving the actual population with nothing but the scraps of international goodwill.

The Unyielding Logic of Occupation

The true resistance to this deal is not political; it is structural. As Al Jazeera reported, an unnamed senior Israeli official noted that despite reports of "diplomatic progress," there would be no withdrawal before what they deem the "genuine disarmament of Hamas." This reveals the core logic: occupation persists until the perceived threat is neutralized by force or agreement. The market, like the geopolitical system, will never price in the cost of continued displacement. We are told this deal allows for a return to normalcy; I see only the continuation of a controlled experiment in subjugation.

The global south does not require phased withdrawals dictated by US election cycles and coalition survival. It requires genuine sovereignty and an end to foreign intervention that treats human life as merely collateral damage in a strategic chessboard. The moment we accept these imposed settlements, we betray the fundamental principle: self-determination cannot be negotiated into existence; it must be demanded from the ground up, against all external pressure.

Is Israel really ready to withdraw from Gaza?

The Unbearable Weight of a Peace Plan Written in Washington

When Ideology Outweighs Humanity

A History of Imposed Ultimata

The Unyielding Logic of Occupation

Sources