After 15 months of devastating conflict, a ceasefire agreement has been brokered between Israel and Hamas by Qatar and the United States. The deal marks the most significant breakthrough since the war began, with a phased approach aimed at halting hostilities, securing hostage releases, and addressing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. However, the agreement is fraught with complexities and potential stumbling blocks that could threaten its fragile success.
What Does the Agreement Entail?
The ceasefire involves three distinct stages:
- Immediate Hostage and Prisoner Exchange:
- The agreement initiates with the release of 33 hostages held by Hamas over six weeks, alongside the release of Palestinian prisoners in Israel, including those serving lengthy sentences.
- Israeli troops are set to withdraw from all populated areas of Gaza, allowing displaced Palestinians to return to their homes.
- Hundreds of lorries carrying humanitarian aid will be permitted entry into Gaza daily, addressing the shortages of food, medicine, and essential supplies.
- Towards a Permanent Ceasefire:
- A full cessation of hostilities is envisioned, with the remaining hostages, including men, being freed in exchange for additional Palestinian prisoners.
- This stage involves the total withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.
- Rebuilding Gaza:
- The final stage focuses on reconstruction efforts in Gaza, expected to span years, and the return of any remaining hostages’ bodies. International aid and cooperation will continue throughout this phase.
Potential Pitfalls in the Deal
While the agreement represents a significant step forward, it is not without its risks:
The deal’s success hinges on the absence of visible Hamas military activity after the second phase. Any indications of a renewed threat could compel Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to resume military operations.
Hamas has demanded the release of high-profile prisoners, some convicted of mass killings. Although key figures like Marwan Barghouti and senior Hamas leaders are excluded, the prisoner exchange remains a contentious point.
Additionally, Israel retains the right to veto certain Hamas demands, further complicating negotiations. Reports indicate that the Israeli cabinet has delayed final approval, awaiting confirmation that Hamas fully accepts the terms.
The “Trump Effect”
For much of the conflict, Netanyahu maintained a stance of “total victory” against Hamas, refusing to negotiate. However, the political landscape shifted with the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency. Analysts suggest that Trump’s influence applied unprecedented pressure on Netanyahu to reach a deal. Trump has already claimed credit for the agreement, calling it an “epic ceasefire” facilitated by his leadership.
Public Sentiment and Reaction
The agreement has been met with mixed emotions. In Israel, the families of hostages expressed relief and hope, urging the government to ensure the safe return of all captives. Meanwhile, Palestinians in Gaza await much-needed humanitarian aid, though concerns about the long-term implications of the deal linger.
Internationally, reactions have varied. Western countries, including the UK and France, have cautiously welcomed the ceasefire, emphasising the importance of humanitarian relief and stability in the region. The European Union has called for sustained diplomatic efforts to prevent a relapse into violence.
Arab nations such as Egypt and Jordan, both of whom play significant roles in regional peace processes, have expressed support for the agreement but remain wary of its implementation challenges. Iran, a key backer of Hamas, has criticised the deal, framing it as a concession to Israeli and US interests.
A Precarious Balance
The ceasefire agreement reflects the convergence of immediate humanitarian concerns and long-term political pressures. While it offers a temporary reprieve from violence, its sustainability depends on the willingness of both parties to adhere to the terms and resist provocations. The phased approach, while practical, carries inherent risks at each stage. Any perceived violations or unfulfilled promises could reignite tensions.
Moreover, the deal’s exclusion of broader issues, such as the West Bank occupation and the status of Jerusalem, underscores its limitations. Without addressing these core disputes, the ceasefire risks becoming a stopgap measure rather than a foundation for enduring peace. The involvement of multiple mediators highlights the complexity of the regional dynamics, where competing interests often hinder cohesive action.
Implications for the Region’s Future
The ceasefire’s impact extends beyond the immediate parties. Both Israel and Hamas have fallen short of their ultimate goals – the annihilation of Hamas and the destruction of the Jewish state, respectively. The deal leaves the West Bank outside its scope, raising questions about unresolved tensions in the occupied territories.
Furthermore, the continued existence of Hamas as a governing and militant force complicates any vision for lasting peace. Mediators like the US, Qatar, and Egypt recognise that while compromise may halt current hostilities, it could sow the seeds of future conflict.
Final Thought
The ceasefire agreement offers a glimmer of hope in an otherwise bleak conflict, but its fragility cannot be overstated. As both sides navigate this precarious path, the potential for renewed violence looms large. The coming weeks and months will test whether the region can move towards peace or if this agreement will become another chapter in its turbulent history.
For more of Curia UK’s analysis on the Middle East, please click here.