Axios, citing a US official, reports that a ceasefire agreement in Gaza has been reached. The news comes as a significant development after weeks of intense conflict, offering a potential respite from the violence and suffering. However, this isn’t necessarily cause for immediate celebration. There’s a palpable sense of cautious optimism, given the history of similar agreements falling apart. The whole situation feels reminiscent of past tense peace deals, like the release of the American hostages in Iran at the end of the Carter administration, where the credit shifted unexpectedly.
This potential ceasefire is a multi-phased deal. The first phase, lasting 42 days, is reportedly finalized, pending official ratification. This initial phase focuses primarily on a prisoner exchange. Palestinian groups are to release Israeli hostages according to a prioritized order: women and children first, followed by older men and those with health conditions. Israel, in turn, will release around 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, mostly those detained since the start of the recent conflict. Crucially, prisoners involved in the October 7th attacks will not be released. The details regarding prisoners transferred to a third country are still being worked out, but it is certain that prisoners serving life sentences will be involved in this process.
The first phase also involves a partial withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza’s borders, notably from the Philadelphi Corridor, though a buffer zone will remain. The extent of the Israeli military presence in the Netzarim Corridor remains somewhat unclear. Israel has also agreed to allow hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians to return to their homes in northern Gaza once certain security measures are in place. Injured Gazans will be permitted to seek medical care outside the territory, and the Rafah crossing with Egypt is slated to reopen seven days after the start of the ceasefire.
Future phases of the agreement, however, are less clear. While initial reports suggested a three-stage plan, it now appears to be two-phased. A second phase would extend the agreement and address the remaining hostages, a full Israeli troop withdrawal from Gaza, an exchange of bodies of deceased combatants, and the implementation of a Gaza reconstruction plan. It’s important to acknowledge that there’s currently no written U.S. guarantee preventing Israel from resuming hostilities after the 42-day period.
The deal itself is considered a bare-minimum agreement, failing to resolve the underlying issues that fueled the conflict. However, the pressure on both sides is evident. Israel faces considerable domestic pressure to secure the release of its hostages, while Hamas likely needs a respite from the relentless bombardment. There’s a chance this could be a genuine step toward peace, though skepticism is warranted given past experience.
The timing of the announcement is intriguing and has sparked much discussion. Some suggest that the upcoming change in US administration played a role. The potential for political maneuvering and the attribution of credit are clear, echoing past similar situations. The possibility of back-channel negotiations and the influence of various political figures, both domestic and international, remains open to conjecture.
While there’s optimism that this ceasefire can hold, the significant challenges should not be overlooked. Hamas’s commitment to the agreement is questioned by many, considering their track record. Concerns persist about whether this deal is merely a temporary fix or a genuine step toward lasting peace. The potential for future escalations remains a significant concern. Even if the ceasefire holds for the duration of its initial phases, the fundamental issues driving the conflict haven’t been addressed. The underlying tensions remain, suggesting the need for further dialogue and long-term solutions. Ultimately, sustained peace will require addressing the root causes of the conflict, not just managing its immediate symptoms. There is widespread uncertainty about the deal’s long term impact.