Ceasefire Deal Between Israel and Hamas Offers Temporary Relief, but Long-Term Peace Remains Uncertain

A newly brokered ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas has outlined a three-phase plan: prisoner exchanges, withdrawal of Israeli forces, and the reconstruction of Gaza. While the agreement provides temporary relief for the region, questions surrounding governance and trust remain unresolved, casting doubt on the prospects for long-term peace.

The situation is further complicated by the growing influence of Turkey as a regional power and the changing political dynamics in the United States, which could exacerbate the already fragile balance of power. As both local and international factors continue to evolve, the path to sustained peace in the region appears precarious.

Israel–Hamas Ceasefire Deal Offers Temporary Relief, but Long-Term Peace Remains Uncertain

After 15 months of devastating conflict, the Israel–Hamas war, which ravaged the Gaza Strip and destabilized the Middle East, has come to a ceasefire under a three-phase peace deal. The agreement aims to bring a permanent end to the fighting, with hostages held by Hamas in Gaza to be exchanged for Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.

While the deal brings significant relief to the region, questions remain about whether it will lead to lasting peace or if it will prove to be another temporary resolution, especially amid shifting geopolitical dynamics following the change of administration in the U.S.

Details of the Peace Deal

The peace deal unfolds in three key phases, with the first two being particularly crucial.

The first phase, lasting 42 days, will see a complete ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from Central Gaza, and the release of hostages from both sides. Hamas will free 33 hostages, while Israel will release nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners—freeing 30 civilians for each Israeli civilian and 50 for each soldier. The IDF will begin pulling back from strategic areas like the Netzarim Corridor.

Negotiations will continue into the second phase, which is expected to bring a permanent ceasefire and full IDF withdrawal, alongside further exchanges of hostages and prisoners.

The third phase will focus on returning the bodies of deceased hostages, developing a reconstruction plan for Gaza, expanding humanitarian aid, and reopening borders.

The Gamble of Peace: Short-Term or Long-Term?

While the deal represents a hopeful step towards ending the conflict, its long-term viability remains in question. The peace process hangs by a fragile thread of trust, which could either lead to lasting peace or a return to hostilities.

Historically, ambitious peace agreements like the Oslo Accords of the 1990s have failed, despite significant negotiations for a two-state solution. The Accords ultimately led to a breakdown in trust between Israelis and Palestinians, transforming short-lived peace into a prolonged period of strategic mistrust.

Given the many uncertainties in the current ceasefire, there are concerns that this new deal may similarly falter, leaving the region once again on the brink of instability.

First: The Balance of Power

Since the fall of Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad, the balance of power in the Middle East has become increasingly unstable. Sunni powers, particularly Turkey, with its aspirations to revive Ottoman influence, are actively expanding their reach in Syria and the broader region.

Turkey's growing influence has led to concerns over its potential to become a strategic threat to Israel. The Israeli government’s Nagel Committee, which evaluates defense budgets and regional power dynamics, has even noted that Turkey could surpass Iran as a regional threat. With its support of Syrian Islamic coalitions, Turkey could become a stronger proxy power in the region. However, the U.S.-Turkey relationship, especially under the Trump administration, is likely to temper Turkey's position on Israeli security.

Second: Israel’s Security Concerns

The Oslo Accords, despite their ambitious aims for a two-state solution, ultimately failed due to mutual mistrust. The accords called for the withdrawal of Israeli troops and the establishment of a Palestinian Authority (PA). Israelis had hoped the PA would combat Hamas and other militant groups. In reality, tensions mounted when Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat did not take decisive steps to prevent attacks on Israelis. Furthermore, Israel’s security measures, such as blocking roads and preventing free passage between the West Bank and Gaza, were perceived by Palestinians as efforts to dominate them, undermining trust.

Even with the current ceasefire, questions remain about the future governance of Gaza. The ceasefire agreement does not address who will govern Gaza after the conflict, and both Israel and the U.S. have made it clear that they do not want Hamas to regain control. However, despite efforts to dismantle Hamas' leadership, the group has resurfaced, taking an active role in distributing humanitarian aid and maintaining some semblance of order in Gaza. This raises concerns that Hamas could revive and continue to influence the region, despite the ongoing ceasefire.

Israel’s current operations, such as "Iron Wall" in Jenin, which targets militant infrastructure, may further complicate peace negotiations. If military actions like this continue, they could derail the fragile ceasefire and renew hostilities, potentially creating another "Oslo Moment."

Third: Trump’s U.S. Policy in the Middle East

During his first term, President Trump adopted a pro-Israel, anti-Iran stance and focused on strategic cooperation with countries like Saudi Arabia. In his second term, this approach is likely to remain, though with more cautious diplomacy. This shift could moderate Turkey’s actions in Syria, help strengthen ties with the UAE and Saudi Arabia, and reassert U.S. influence in the region.

However, this approach carries significant risks, particularly concerning Iran. If Trump reinstates sanctions and intensifies the "maximum pressure" campaign against Tehran, it could exacerbate tensions in the region. Iran’s regional influence would be further challenged, potentially leading to more conflicts with Turkey, and further complicating Israel's security situation. This could reignite proxy wars and destabilize efforts for peace, threatening the future of the ceasefire agreement.

References