The 15-month war in Gaza has reached a tentative pause, but lasting peace still seems a challenging goal. Distrust between the warring parties is palpable, a toxic undercurrent that could sabotage adherence to even the initial terms of the ceasefire. Both groups still harbor the dispiriting perception that the ultimate annihilation of the other remains the endgame. The troubling fact is that the truce itself was not born of mutual exhaustion or a genuine reevaluation of strategies but was instead externally imposed by mediators. Imposed by external forces rather than embraced, this delicate truce lacks the strong will needed to create a lasting peace. Fear of violation looms large as each side scrutinizes the other’s every move, seeking signs of sincerity – or treachery. Old injuries, conflicting goals, and the constant draw of retribution hinder the road to peace. In this broken world, advancement will call for amazing patience, wise diplomacy, and, above all, an unyielding will to avoid slipping back into conflict. As a result, the coming months will likely devolve into a tense stalemate, with both factions probing for weakness, testing patience, and bracing for the next inevitable eruption.
The ceasefire agreement, brokered with the intervention of Qatari, Egyptian, and U.S. mediators, marks a milestone – but its timing underscores a bitter irony. Though the groundwork had been set under the administration of President Biden, the turning point arrived only with Donald Trump’s reentry into the political arena. As former Secretary of State Antony Blinken admitted, the Biden administration was reluctant to use the great power of the United States to urge Benjamin Netanyahu toward a peace deal. By contrast, Trump was unapologetically forceful and aggressive. Resolved to have diplomatic success before being sworn in, he pushed Netanyahu to seal the deal. Though this outcome is well received, it raises a chilling question: how many lives could have been saved if the same seriousness had prevailed earlier? Not only does the delay demonstrate a lack of diplomacy, but it also shows a woeful human tragedy cost – a stark reminder of the great impact connected with the hesitancy of power. The true difficulty ahead, however, will be to maintain this momentum in the presence of strong mutual distrust.
Concerns linger about whether Israeli and Palestinian leaders will respect the three-phase agreement. Mediators and the international community at large must remain vigilant, ensuring every condition of the agreement is upheld with precision. Further complicating this fragile equilibrium is the gap between the hopes of average Israelis and Palestinians for peace and what their leaderships see as indispensable for their political survival. This divergence underscores the fragile nature of progress and the long, arduous road still ahead for a genuine resolution. The political survival of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has often hinged on fomenting division and exploiting unrest. His approach thrives on a fragile equilibrium, where one conflict remains perpetually simmering. After ceasefires were secured with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, the West Bank erupted with renewed violence, further stoking tensions. Settlers once held under administrative detention – deprived of due legal process – were abruptly released, followed by a sharp uptick in settler terrorism. While administrative detentions are inherently contentious, their suspension appears calibrated to placate the far-right settler movement, whose support is crucial to Netanyahu’s fragile coalition. This deliberate appeasement reveals a disturbing pattern: a management ready to support radical groups to steady its own grip on power. In the midst of these pressures, the prospect of a lasting peace remains unclear.
The tentative first steps of the ceasefire reveal a delicate equation fraught with pitfalls. Scant information on the second and third stages of the treaty leaves plenty of material for detractors keen to stop any real development or hinder the reconstruction of Gaza. Nonetheless, there are faint signs of guarded optimism. There was little interruption in the first stage: a ceasefire, the release of the first batches of Israeli captives and Palestinian prisoners, the distribution of humanitarian assistance into Gaza, and the slow, hesitant return of displaced Palestinians to their homes. Still, these small improvements should not motivate unjustified optimism. Negotiations for the second phase will delve into the war’s endgame and the release of remaining hostages. Although still surrounded by a heavy dose of doubt, the early truce presents a delicate glimmer of relief.
The fragility of this agreement lies in the precarious political landscapes on both sides. The ceasefire agreement has already started political unrest for Netanyahu. Branding the accord a “reckless surrender,” Otzma Yehudit left the coalition, which gives the government a razor-thin Knesset majority of two. The Zionist Religious Party, on the other hand, grudgingly endorsed the agreement but cautioned that it could leave the coalition should the war be halted in the second stage. The instability of the three-phase deal has a rather long shadow. Netanyahu has a harsh political calculus to contend with: losing his majority might bring about elections he is unlikely to win, something he cannot afford given his continuous legal problems. Netanyahu’s political currency is very much diminished. Claiming victory in Gaza seems implausible when Hamas remains entrenched despite heavy losses, and his delayed action to secure hostages has already drawn widespread criticism. A renewed war in Gaza could serve as Netanyahu’s gambit to restore his coalition by bringing hardliners like Itamar Ben-Gvir back into government – a move fraught with risks. For the United States, particularly under a potential second Trump administration, this scenario could test its resolve to end wars while navigating its alliance with Israel. Netanyahu’s final decision will probably depend on whether he keeps the balance between keeping his coalition intact and protecting Israel’s most vital overseas relationship.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
