Halle L. Wallis
Introduction
A cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hamas has taken hold after over a year of catastrophic warfare. The ceasefire, forged with the intent to terminate “the deadliest and most destructive war ever between Israel and Hamas,” commenced on January 19, 2025. This agreement signifies a pivotal moment in a war fraught with immeasurable loss and devastation; however, deep-seated enmities and multifaceted geopolitical complexities threaten the potential for the deal’s permanence. The deal, though providing a tentative beacon of hope, must contend with challenges arising not only from entrenched political divides but also from the broader regional forces that exert influence over both entities. Ultimately, the international community faces a critical juncture, torn between measured optimism and circumspect skepticism, uncertain whether this fragile peace can transcend the profound discord that preceded it.
Brief of the “Beginning” – October 7, 2023
An in-depth grasp of the ceasefire deal emerges from an examination of the antecedent occurrences that culminated in the resolution. The Gaza (or Israel-Hamas) War began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas orchestrated “the third-deadliest terrorist attack of all time,” killing approximately 1,200 people and taking more than 250 hostages. This deadly incident yielded the largest number of Jewish fatalities in a single day since the Holocaust. The attack, dubbed “Israel’s 9/11,” heralded a tactical paradigm shift for Hamas—which had previously gained notoriety for deploying rocket barrages, orchestrating suicide strikes against civilian infrastructure, and executing calculated roadside offensives on public venues.
“Our Narrative—Operation Al-Aqsa Flood,” a detailed sixteen-page report, articulated Hamas’s rationale for the attack on October 7. Hamas characterized the incursion as “a defensive act in the frame of getting rid of the Israeli occupation” and justified it as “a necessary step and a normal response to confront all Israeli conspiracies against the Palestinian people and their cause.” In this context, it is crucial to emphasize that the deliberate use of the term “narrative” implicitly serves to absolve the terrorist organization from the responsibility of presenting the truth—after all, a narrative is not necessarily bound by historical accuracy. Hamas situated their activities within the context of a broader ideological battle, thereby obfuscating the true nature of the violence and deflecting attention from the consequent humanitarian destruction, ultimately manipulating public sentiment to advance their own strategic objectives.
Israel—in the wake of this unprecedented massacre—issued a formal declaration of war against Hamas and launched an extensive military campaign in Gaza. Israel formed an emergency unity government and “war management cabinet,” appointing key opposition leader Benny Gantz—a former Defense Minister and Chief Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Commander—alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Netanyahu specified two primary objectives: (1) to dismantle and neutralize Hamas’s military and governmental capabilities and (2) to ensure the hostages’ safe return.
Israel’s counter-offensive—which outstripped the intensity and duration of any previous war—began with coordinated aerial bombardment and a full-scale ground invasion. Furthermore, Israel, as part of a complete blockade/siege, halted the provision of electricity, food, and fuel to Gaza—which, prior to the conflict, had already endured crisis-level economic and humanitarian challenges. On October 13, 2023, Israel mandated the evacuation of over one million Palestinians, urging them to relocate south of Wadi Gaza—a seasonal riverbed (wadi) that traverses the Gaza Strip, flowing from the Negev Desert in Israel into the Mediterranean Sea—amid sustained bombing and military offensives. Notwithstanding assurances of safety in southern Gaza, relentless and ruinous bombardment persisted across the entire territory. A mere week after the attack on October 7, 2023, Israeli strikes had already claimed over 1,900 Palestinian lives—including at least 600 children—wounded more than 7,600, and displaced over 423,000.
As civilian casualties mounted in Gaza, several regional and international figures became increasingly vocal in their criticism of Israel. On October 21, 2023, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi convened regional and global authorities at the Cairo Peace Summit in a concerted effort to de-escalate the hostilities, a move partly spurred by growing trepidation over the prospect of a wider regional conflict. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—alongside Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, and Morocco—collectively pressed for an immediate cease-fire.
November 2023 Ceasefire
On November 15, 2023, the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) adopted Resolution 2712, which called for “urgent and extended humanitarian pauses” as well as the “immediate and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas [and Israel].” Additionally, the resolution called on all parties to prevent the deprivation of “basic services and humanitarian assistance indispensable to [the] survival” of those in Gaza. The UNSC passed the resolution by a vote of twelve in favor, none against, while the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia abstained.
On November 24, 2023, Qatar brokered a temporary ceasefire agreement between Israel and Palestinian terrorist entities—including Hamas, Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine—which took effect in the Gaza Strip until November 30, 2023. The crux of the agreement involved Hamas’s release of 50 Israeli hostages—all women and children—in exchange for 150 Palestinian detainees previously incarcerated by Israel. Moreover, the “pause,” aimed at alleviating the dire humanitarian crisis, facilitated the delivery of critical aid to Gaza, where acute shortages of food, water, medical care, and shelter had intensified into a full-blown emergency.
Although the ceasefire raised hopes of a permanent reprieve, it collapsed on December 1, 2023, underscoring the fragility and ephemerality of peace in such a volatile context. In essence, while both Israel and Hamas squarely placed blame on the other for the agreement’s collapse, the reinitiation of missile strikes by Hamas, coupled with the terrorist attack in Jerusalem on November 30, 2023, arguably led to the ceasefire’s dissolution.
Ceasefire Redux – January 2025
By December 2024, the ongoing hostilities had claimed approximately 47,540 Palestinian lives and left 111,618 wounded. However, the Gaza Health Ministry maintained that the reported figures grossly understated the true death toll, as countless bodies remained beneath wreckage in areas inaccessible to emergency personnel. Since October 7, 2023, more than 2% of Gaza’s population has perished, with the death rate averaging 3,000 people per month or 100 per day. Furthermore, the death toll from Israeli strikes and combat in Lebanon surpassed 3,580, with over 15,000 injured, as reported by Lebanon’s Health Ministry.
On January 19, 2025—after over a year of incessant carnage, loss, and destruction—Israel and Hamas reached a multiphase (three-stage) ceasefire agreement. A week of strenuous conciliation spearheaded by Qatar, the United States, and Egypt, brought the deal to fruition. This agreement virtually replicates the “framework agreement” previously set forth by then-U.S. President Joe Biden. On May 31, 2024, Biden delivered a televised address, expounding on what he characterized as the outline of an Israeli ceasefire proposal. Biden crafted his speech to construct a narrative of triumph for Israel, proclaiming that “Hamas [is] no longer capable of carrying out another October 7th.” He argued that an indefinite war, fought under the nebulous banner of “total victory,” would only “bog down” Israel in Gaza, “draining the economic, military, and human resources, and furthering Israel’s isolation in the world.” On June 10, 2024, the UNSC ratified the proposal through the passage of Resolution 2735. However, Netanyahu repudiated Biden’s speech, arguing that it was “not [an] accurate” reflection of Israel’s position(s), and vehemently reiterated his insistence on continuing the war. On July 2, 2024, Hamas assented to a revised proposal from Biden, stipulating only that the ceasefire would culminate in the war’s termination—rather than a temporary cessation—and Israel’s full withdrawal. Nonetheless, Netanyahu—steadfast in his refusal to pledge an end to the conflict—unilaterally introduced four new “non-negotiables,” a move widely perceived as a systematic attempt to obstruct and derail the deal. Although Netanyahu (arguably) bore primary culpability for the deal’s disintegration, the White House ascribed responsibility for the deadlock to Hamas.
Fundamentally, the circumstances that precipitated the ceasefire’s re-emergence in January remain a focal point of dispute. Biden linked the deal’s revival to the impact of “extreme pressure” on Hamas, a transformed “regional equation” that has curtailed Iran and Hezbollah’s maneuverability, and the perseverance of “dogged and painstaking American diplomacy.” However, it has been asserted that President Donald Trump’s public ultimatum—warning that “all hell will break out in the Middle East” unless the captives are freed before his inauguration—galvanized both parties to negotiate a compromise.
The ceasefire deal outlines a comprehensive agreement for the first stage, whereas the second and third stages are presently governed only by a broad framework. The first six-week phase—currently underway—encompasses the suspension of hostilities by both parties, a (partial) hostage-prisoner swap, a gradual IDF withdrawal from the majority of Gaza, the facilitation of displaced Palestinians’ return to the largely depopulated north, and the daily entry of humanitarian aid lorries into the region. On the sixteenth day of the ceasefire, diplomatic dialogues will commence on the second stage, centering on the declaration of a “sustainable calm,” the institutionalization of a permanent ceasefire, the structured exchange of the remaining hostages in Gaza, and the full-scale withdrawal of Israeli forces. In the final, third phase of the agreement, authorities will repatriate all remaining bodies of dead hostages and initiate Gaza’s reconstruction.
Trump’s Gaza Gambit: From Conflict Zone to “Riviera of the Middle East”
The release of hostages has unfolded against the backdrop of President Trump’s recent assertion that the U.S. will “take over the Gaza Strip.” “We’ll [buy and] own it . . . We have an opportunity to do something that could be phenomenal . . . the Riviera of the Middle East.” “There’s nothing to move back into. The place is a demolition site . . . The remainder will be demolished,” he added. “But we’ll make it into a very good site for future development by somebody.” Moreover, Trump—in yet another stunning revelation—declared that Gaza’s entire population would be relocated to other countries. Trump disclosed no additional information on how the U.S. would operationalize such objectives.
Trump’s “ethnic cleansing” scheme incited vehement opposition from Arab and Palestinian authorities—as well as Hamas—who have long sought to establish Gaza and the West Bank as the nucleus of a future Palestinian state alongside Israel. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who stood in solidarity with Trump at a joint press conference—promptly lauded the proposal as “revolutionary and creative.” Netanyahu reiterated that Israel’s foremost objective is “to make sure that Gaza never poses a threat to Israel again.” He then added, “President Trump is taking it to a much higher level . . . He has a different idea, and I think it’s worth paying attention to this.” In effect, the disclosure of Trump’s plan enables Netanyahu to cast himself to his far-right devotees as the only Israeli political figure capable of compelling the president (of the United States) to turn their vision for the Middle East into a tangible reality. Evidently, through the advancement of Trump’s proposal, that vision—aimed at irrevocably quashing any hopes for Palestinian peace—is propelled forward. Trump’s push for the annexation of Palestinian land could reignite warfare in Gaza, fracture Israel’s peace with Egypt and Jordan, and reinvigorate the legitimacy of Iran’s regional proxies—risking the outbreak of a full-scale regional war.
Conclusion: What Now? Will the Ceasefire Last?
Manifestly, although the ceasefire in and of itself is a monumental achievement, the agreement’s durability is hindered by persistent political and logistical difficulties. Trump’s plan has only exacerbated the fractures in an already fragile agreement. Furthermore, Hamas declared it would postpone the additional release of hostages in the Gaza Strip, blaming Israel for breaching the fragile ceasefire. Moreover, the families of hostages still held by Hamas have desperately urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to account for the stalled negotiation(s)—for the second, more difficult phase of the ceasefire which should have begun in early February—describing the delay as a “clear and tangible” danger to their loved ones. On February 19, 2025, Hamas—seeking a permanent truce and a full-scale Israeli pullout—proposed a plan to exchange all Israeli captives for Palestinian detainees in one coordinated move. This proposal came despite the IDF demolishing more than a dozen apartment complexes at a refugee camp in the occupied West Bank a mere day earlier.
The critical question at hand is whether the current ceasefire can withstand the forces of geopolitical tension, or if history will once more unfold, as violence resurfaces amidst long-standing animosities. Only time will reveal whether this fragile peace can evolve into a lasting resolution or succumb to the forces of disruption.
Comentários