MENA Strategic Bulletin

US proposes a new ceasefire for Gaza

The White House announced on Thursday night that Israel has agreed to a new ceasefire proposal for Gaza, designed to bring a temporary halt to hostilities and facilitate the release of hostages and humanitarian aid. The plan, brokered by US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and backed by Egypt and Qatar, outlines a 60-day truce. In its initial phase, it calls for the release of 28 Israeli hostages – both living and deceased – in exchange for 125 Palestinian prisoners and the remains of 180 Palestinians.

While Hamas has confirmed it is reviewing the terms, it stated that the deal in its current form “does not meet any of our people’s demands.” The proposal does not include a commitment by Israel to end the war, and it allows Israel to resume military operations after the 60-day period. This condition has raised concerns within Hamas, which cited Israel’s alleged violation of a previous ceasefire in March.

Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to deteriorate. The newly formed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a US-backed and Israeli-endorsed logistics group, has expanded aid distribution to a third site. However, its efforts have been widely criticised. UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini called the operation “a waste of resources and a distraction from atrocities,” adding, “we already have an aid distribution system that is fit for purpose.” Tensions escalated further when Israeli troops opened fire on civilians during an aid distribution event, killing at least one person and injuring dozens, undermining the legitimacy and effectiveness of the aid operation itself.

Stakeholder and regional impact

The proposed ceasefire comes amid intensifying domestic and international pressure on Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank. The UK recently suspended free trade agreement negotiations with Israel and imposed sanctions on West Bank settlers. In the EU, 17 out of 27 member states are now supporting a Dutch-led proposal to review the EU-Israel Association Agreement.

The Israeli government, meanwhile, approved a major 22-settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank on Thursday 29 May, apparently undeterred by the growing chorus of international condemnation.

Politically, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is navigating a narrow path: any long-term truce that does not achieve the stated goal of dismantling Hamas will be viewed as a betrayal by his far-right coalition partners, with Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir promising to resign if such a ceasefire is reached. This threat, which would lead to the dissolution of the government, means Netanyahu is highly unlikely to commit to a lasting truce.

Hamas, on the other hand, is under immense pressure due to the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza. With over two million people at risk of famine following Israel’s blocking of aid since March, the group may find itself compelled to accept terms it would otherwise reject.

What’s next?

The ceasefire appears to be a temporary measure rather than a durable resolution. Netanyahu has previously reversed course on ceasefire agreements, and there is little to indicate that this attempt will break from that pattern.

However, the increasingly strained relationship between Netanyahu and the Trump administration could alter the dynamics compared to previous negotiations. Tensions between the Israeli leadership and the US have become more pronounced, particularly as Washington re-engages in nuclear talks with Iran. This could translate into greater US pressure on Israel to adhere to the ceasefire.

On the ground, Israel’s recent announcement of new settlements in the occupied West Bank will further displace Palestinians in the West Bank, escalating regional tensions. The move risks triggering a strong reaction from Jordan, particularly as international support for curbing Israeli settlement expansion is growing.

While the urgency of the humanitarian crisis and diplomatic pressure from the US may align to advance the ceasefire’s implementation, its failure to resolve key questions surrounding the transition to a longer-term ceasefire and post-war governance in Gaza seems intended to ensure it is short-lived.

First official US visit to Syria in over a decade

US Special Envoy for Syria Thomas Barrack arrived in Damascus on Thursday May 29 as part of the first official American visit to Syria since 2012. Although Washington has not formally reopened its embassy in Syria, the envoy’s arrival and the raising of the US flag at the ambassador’s residence represents a new phase in US engagement with post-conflict Syria, particularly following President Trump’s recent announcement that the US would lift the Caesar Act sanctions.

While not yet a full normalisation of relations, Barrack’s statements positioned the US as a willing player in Syria’s reconstruction process. Speaking to media in Damascus, Barrack also referenced the issue of normalisation with Israel on the table. “I’d say we need to start with just a non-aggression agreement, talk about boundaries and borders,” he said.

Stakeholder and regional impact

The US envoy’s visit to Damascus, following the lifting of Caesar Act sanctions, points to a growing American role not only in Syria’s reconstruction but also in shaping its political realignment.  Though still in early stages, talks between Syrian and Israeli officials have taken place, with the aim of calming tensions and clarifying border arrangements. A key point of contention is Israel’s establishment of a 400-metre buffer zone inside Syrian territory, which Syria views as a violation of sovereignty.

Sanctions relief is another major area of impact. The US decision to lift the Caesar Act was followed by the EU ending its remaining restrictions, enabling Syria’s gradual re-entry into international financial systems. But key challenges remain. While regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Qatar have stepped to clear Syria’s $15.5m in World Bank arrears and offered financial support, US policy remains cautious.

Washington still formally designates Syria’s ruling party, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), as a terrorist organisation. UN Security Council sanctions under Resolution 1267, covering asset freezes, travel bans and arms embargoes are still in place and legally binding on HTS and its leader Ahmad Al Sharaa, which complicate investment and cooperation with the Syrian government.

What’s next?

Syria is cautiously re-entering the international system. As noted, unresolved issues like border demarcation with Israel and the designation of HTS as a terrorist organisation continue to complicate Syria’s recovery. The US has taken meaningful steps, easing sanctions, enabling Gulf funding and signalling support for reconstruction, but the broader international framework has yet to follow suit.

Domestically, sectarian tensions and ongoing economic suffering are ensuring any optimism is tempered with caution. The country’s mid-term prospects may depend on whether – and how soon – gestures of political recognition can be matched by real economic development.