Beyond Battlefield: How Global Think Tanks View Gaza’s Uncertain Future

As the Gaza war enters its third year, international political and media attention has intensified around efforts to reach a lasting ceasefire and the parties’ responses to former U.S. President Donald Trump’s peace initiative. 

With expectations of accelerated progress, several reports suggest that negotiations could soon gain momentum following the arrival of a senior U.S. delegation that includes Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff—figures closely tied to Trump’s Middle East agenda.

Trump himself said the next 48 hours would be decisive in determining whether an agreement on Gaza can be reached. Israeli media outlets described “growing American optimism,” with Channel 12 reporting that U.S. officials expect progress this week and that Trump’s envoys will not leave Cairo until a deal is finalized.

In Israel, however, concerns persist over possible Hamas demands that could complicate the talks. 

Yedioth Ahronoth reported unease within Israeli circles about potential issues surrounding prisoner exchanges, withdrawal lines, and timelines for the release of hostages. Seeking to avoid any perception of bowing to U.S. pressure, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reaffirmed his pledge to prevent future threats from Gaza, vowing to continue efforts to bring home all hostages, end Hamas rule in the enclave, and ensure lasting security for Israel.

Netanyahu’s remarks come as Israel faces growing diplomatic isolation. The Wall Street Journal reported that Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza has triggered widespread international criticism, potentially undermining its global standing in the long term.

Against this backdrop, global think tanks have stepped up their analysis of the conflict’s trajectory and implications. A report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace noted that, as the war enters its third year, several nations have recognized the State of Palestine—before and during the latest UN conference. The report urged the international community to work with the United States to radically revise the Trump plan in line with international law.

London-based Chatham House warned that any “day-after” plan for Gaza or Palestine is doomed to fail unless it includes a clear framework for a two-state solution. Despite current challenges, it described the ongoing initiative as a potential step toward ending the violence and easing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

The Middle East Institute (MEI) said that after two years of devastating conflict, there may now be an opportunity—however limited—to halt the fighting. The think tank argued that the current proposal gives Washington a chance to claim a partial but politically meaningful success in curbing the violence.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) focused on Israel’s internal dynamics, highlighting that Netanyahu’s 15 years in office—the longest tenure in Israel’s history—demonstrate his political resilience but also expose his vulnerability. According to the CFR, his repeated missteps in Gaza could become a key challenge in any future election.

Meanwhile, the Stimson Center offered a cautious outlook, noting that while momentum toward a ceasefire is growing, past experience suggests that such agreements are often fragile. It urged the international community to temper expectations for a comprehensive and lasting solution.

Taken together, these assessments suggest that the Gaza war has reached a critical juncture. As the international community searches for a formula to end one of the world’s longest and most politically charged conflicts, analysts warn that even if the coming negotiations produce a temporary truce, a durable peace will require far deeper political commitments than any deal now on the table.