Editor's Note: Wang Jin is a special commentator for CGTN and a Middle East expert at China's Northwest University. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Three years after October 7, 2023, Gaza has yet to achieve a lasting and just peace, and continues to face major security challenges. Israel, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and the international community remain deeply divided over how to secure a lasting political settlement. The road to peace remains long and difficult.

The conflict that erupted on October 7, 2023 is, in large part, a tragic consequence of the long-standing failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Insufficient international attention to the Palestinian question, combined with the prolonged deadlock in peace negotiations, left the blockade of Gaza unresolved for years. Hamas launched violent attacks against southern Israel in this conext, causing large-scale casualties and inflicting significant human and economic losses on Israel in the early stage of the conflict.

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process has long relied on dialogue mediated by the United States, while effective mechanisms for peace monitoring and conflict management have remained limited. Over the past three years, Israel has conducted large-scale military operations in Gaza, resulting in a severe humanitarian crisis. Limited international oversight and constraints have also exposed major gaps in the international community's capacity to manage and contain the conflict.

In October 2025, Israel and Hamas reached a ceasefire agreement under mediation, with arrangements on issues including the exchange of personnel. The Gaza conflict has since entered a new phase. While large-scale and high-intensity fighting has largely subsided, the two sides remain far from achieving genuine and lasting peace.

Israel continues to lack sufficient trust in Hamas. October 7 changed Israel's society, security and politics, significantly narrowing the will and policy space for pursuing long-term peace in Gaza. Mainstream opinion in Israel tends to hold that the international community does not fully understand Israel's security concerns, while the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and other Palestinian political forces cannot be relied upon. Even the United States, a key ally, is perceived by some Israelis as unable to fully support Israel's security needs. Israel has become more inclined to rely on hardline measures to safeguard national security and prevent a new October 7.

Israel's continued military pressure in Gaza and expanded military control in areas including the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria reflect that. Younger political figures, particularly those on the far right, have risen rapidly within Israel, while hardline political positions have become increasingly prominent. Under these circumstances, Israel faces difficulties in returning to a political path toward Israeli-Palestinian peace and making substantive diplomatic choices on the issue.

The reconstruction of Gaza's security order and the establishment of a new governance mechanism should, in principle, involve the Palestinian Authority. The international community generally regards it as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. But it lacks the capacity to effectively govern Gaza.  Since 2007, Gaza has remained under the de facto control of Hamas, leaving the Palestinian Authority without effective governance over the territory for nearly two decades.

Given Gaza's extremely high population density and complex local environment, the Palestinian Authority would find it difficult to return to Gaza and resume its functions in the short term. At the same time, its security system is heavily dependent on support from the US and Israel. With Israel effectively controlling a substantial part of Gaza's territory, the Palestinian Authority would face even greater challenges in independently assuming responsibility for governance. As a result, it is unlikely to be able to return to Gaza in the short term and effectively perform political, administrative, security, and livelihood-related functions.

How the international community should intervene in and assist with the post-war governance of Gaza remains a key challenge. Under current approaches, post-war governance in Gaza would require substantial international assistance, particularly for funding, political support and security. 

Under the US approach, post-war reconstruction funding for Gaza would be expected to come primarily from the Gulf Arab states. However, given the prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the impact of the conflict in Yemen on Saudi Arabia's national security, and the severe challenges facing the traditional energy-based economies of the Gulf states, these countries are unlikely to provide substantial financial support for Gaza's economic reconstruction.

Egypt and Jordan, although willing to participate in Gaza's security reconstruction, remain highly cautious about deploying large numbers of police forces to the territory. They are concerned that such involvement could affect their standing among the Palestinian public and therefore lean toward limited security and police support. As a result, both the financial and security aspects of post-war reconstruction face significant obstacles, making the effective implementation of relevant policies difficult in the short term.

Gaza is now caught in a prolonged post-ceasefire stalemate, while genuine peace remains out of reach. Its population continues to face the threat of renewed conflict and humanitarian crisis, while everyday hardships persist. The first step on the path to peace is getting into talks and putting a viable arrangement in place. It's also the hardest one to take.