The most important breakthrough in a conflict is often not when the guns fall silent, but when the combatants begin to accept that they cannot achieve through war what they once believed was attainable. If the latest framework for Gaza survives the formidable political and military obstacles before it, it may come to be remembered as precisely such a moment. The significance lies less in the immediate promise of a ceasefire than in the altered assumptions of the principal actors.

For years, Israel has insisted that any durable peace requires the dismantling of Hamas as an armed force. Hamas, in turn, has treated its weapons as the ultimate guarantee of its political relevance and its claim to resistance. The latest understanding suggests that, for the first time, both sides are at least contemplating the same destination, even while fiercely disputing the route to reach it. That distinction matters. Peace agreements fail as often because of sequencing as because of substance. Israel wants verifiable disarmament before withdrawing.

Hamas demands withdrawal before surrendering its military assets. Bridging this gap through phased, internationally supervised implementation is an attempt to replace absolute distrust with........

© The Statesman