Ceasefire in Gaza: Hope amid skepticism

The time has come to address the core issue of Palestine comprehensively to achieve lasting peace in the region.

Muslim Network TV Analysis

GAZA, Palestine (MNTV) – The announcement of a ceasefire agreement in Gaza has sparked both celebrations and skepticism.

After 15 months of relentless war, the deal brokered by the United States, Qatar, and Egypt offers a glimmer of hope for a war-torn region. However, the complexities surrounding the agreement—and the track record of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—raise doubts about its durability.

The ceasefire’s first phase is set to last 42 days, during which 33 Israeli prisoners, including women, children, and the elderly, will be exchanged for Palestinian prisoners.

Humanitarian aid is also expected to flow into Gaza as Israeli forces withdraw from populated urban areas. Yet, the implementation of these measures remains uncertain, with Netanyahu’s far-right allies and Hamas’s demands posing significant hurdles.

Netanyahu’s decision to delay a cabinet vote on the ceasefire underscores these challenges. His office accused Hamas of reneging on certain provisions, a claim Hamas categorically denied.

Hamas official Izzat al-Risheq affirmed the group’s commitment to the deal, stating, “This agreement meets all our conditions, including the full withdrawal of Israeli forces, the return of displaced people, and a permanent end to the war.”

The negotiations in Doha, led by Mossad chief David Barnea and other mediators, continue as both sides navigate last-minute crises. Mediators remain cautiously optimistic, but as history shows, Netanyahu’s government has previously pulled back from agreements at critical junctures.

Andrew England, writing in the Financial Times, highlighted the precariousness of the deal, stating, “The agreement, while welcomed, is tempered by deep skepticism given Netanyahu’s history of changing goalposts for political gains. The key question is whether this is a step toward lasting peace or merely a temporary pause.”

Netanyahu faces immense pressure from his far-right allies, including Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. Smotrich described the deal as a “surrender” and called for the war to resume “at full force” once the prisoners are released. Ben-Gvir has threatened to resign, potentially destabilizing Netanyahu’s coalition government.

The departure of these far-right parties could leave Netanyahu with a minority government, leading to early elections. Such political instability raises questions about his ability to uphold the agreement.

Opposition parties have indicated a willingness to prop up the government temporarily, but this fragile arrangement underscores the deal’s tenuous nature.

Haarz reflected on Netanyahu’s hesitations, stating, “Netanyahu’s delays and accusations against Hamas underscore his reluctance to commit fully to a ceasefire. This approach risks derailing an agreement that has taken over a year of negotiations to achieve.”

President-elect Donald Trump’s involvement in the ceasefire negotiations marks a significant shift in U.S. policy.

Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, played a central role, shuttling between Doha and Israel to finalize the deal. Trump’s blunt warning in December that there would be “all hell to pay” if prisoners were not released added urgency to the talks.

Haarz commented on Trump’s approach, stating, “The hollow expression ‘all hell will break out’ became the magic key needed to compel Netanyahu to agree to a deal that had been languishing for months.” While Trump’s tactics succeeded in securing the agreement, the question remains whether he can ensure its sustainability.

Trump’s incoming administration, packed with staunchly pro-Israel figures, poses both opportunities and risks. While his influence may pressure Netanyahu to adhere to the deal, Trump’s lack of a detailed strategy for Gaza’s administration post-war adds to the uncertainty.

The ceasefire provides a critical opportunity to address the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Over 46,000 Palestinians have been killed, and 110,000 injured since the war began. Many more Palestinies remain unaccounted for. Last year in June credible medical journal The Lancet had put figures Palestinians killed directly or indirectly by Israeli actions at 186,000.

Entire neighborhoods lie in ruins, and basic infrastructure is non-existent. The war has displaced hundreds of thousands, creating one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent history.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken emphasized the importance of humanitarian aid, stating, “Israel must abandon the myth that it can carry out de facto annexation without cost to its democracy and security.”

Despite U.S. pressure, the aid reaching Gaza has fallen short of what is needed. The distribution of aid remains a contentious issue, with Hamas fighters continuing to oversee its allocation.

The establishment of a “social management committee” proposed by Qatar and Egypt aims to address these challenges. This committee, composed of representatives from Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, would manage civilian infrastructure. However, disagreements between Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas have stalled its implementation.

Regional and international implications

The ceasefire’s success hinges on broader regional dynamics. Arab countries, including Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, have welcomed the agreement. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi highlighted the importance of delivering critical aid to Gaza, stating, “This agreement underscores the need for sustainable peace through a two-state solution.”

Saudi Arabia’s support for normalization with Israel remains conditional on progress toward Palestinian statehood. However, Netanyahu’s far-right government shows little inclination to make concessions. Instead, Israel’s focus appears to be on consolidating control over the West Bank and countering Iranian influence.

Iran, meanwhile, has hailed the ceasefire as a “historic victory” for the Palestinian resistance. This sentiment reflects the broader geopolitical contest in the region, with Iran positioning itself as a champion of the Palestinian cause. The ceasefire’s durability will depend, in part, on how these regional actors engage with the process.

The agreement’s second phase, which involves the release of the remaining prisoners and a full Israeli withdrawal, presents significant obstacles.

Netanyahu’s reluctance to commit to a permanent ceasefire will remain a sticking point.

Moreover, the question of Gaza’s governance looms large. Neither Israel nor Arab states want Hamas to retain control, but there is no clear alternative. The Biden administration’s proposal for an international security force has yet to materialize, leaving Gaza’s future uncertain.

Israeli newspaper Haartz summarized the stakes, stating, “Halting the war was a Herculean task, but rebuilding Gaza and achieving sustainable peace may prove even more challenging.”

Despite these challenges, the ceasefire represents a critical juncture in the history of Israel’s continued occupation of Palestine.

For Palestinians in Gaza, it offers a respite from the deadliest war in their history. For the region, it provides an opportunity to address long standing grievances and build toward a sustainable peace. However, its success will require unwavering commitment from Israel to address the basic issue of granting rights to Palestinians.

The stakes are high. As Blinken remarked, “The myth of cost-free annexation must end.”

The time has come to address the core issue of Palestine comprehensively to achieve lasting peace in the region.

Piecemeal steps may bring temporary truces, but they risk leaving the region on a perpetual boil in the longer run. The ceasefire’s legacy will depend on whether it can lay the groundwork for a just and lasting resolution to one of the world’s most intractable conflicts.