The eve of Donald Trump’s inauguration, Israel and Hamas are releasing a ceasefire agreement that has the potential to bring an end to the decades-long siege of Gaza. The negotiated deal will reportedly unfold in three stages. The first will include a temporary cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of Israel forces from the northern part of Gaza. The second will include the release of the remaining hostages in exchange for Israeli prisoners, and the third will involve the reconstruction of Gaza – a massive undertaking that could take years or decades.
The details of the agreement will be negotiated during the first six weeks of the truce, and there is significant uncertainty about whether it will last beyond that period. Moreover, there is sizeable opposition within the Israeli right to the deal, with members of Netanyahu’s cabinet publicly denouncing it. Israel has also insisted that no written guarantees be made that it will not resume attacks once its civilian hostages have been returned.
In addition, there is a large degree of uncertainty about how the US will react to any violations of the terms of the ceasefire, especially given the Trump administration’s highly pro-Israel stance on the issue. Finally, the weakened state of Lebanon could jeopardize the effectiveness of the deal, particularly if Hezbollah or other Lebanese militias resume military operations inside Israel. But, as we argue in a new paper, if an agreement is built on credible commitment mechanisms and there is sufficient pressure from external sources to hold all parties to their word, it may succeed where previous agreements have failed.
About the Author
