Last month, the world witnessed a significant diplomatic development when Israel and Hamas reached a ceasefire agreement. The aftermath of this breakthrough sparked a heated dialogue about who deserved the credit: was it Joe Biden or Donald Trump?
President Biden was quick to assert that the framework for the ceasefire closely mirrored the one crafted by his administration in May. There’s merit to his claim; indeed, the agreement’s primary structure was largely in place. However, an addition was made in early January — a mere 600-word document titled “Appendix I,” delineating the practical procedures necessary to implement the agreement.
In a particularly charged meeting in Jerusalem, Biden’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, made a strong impression on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, underscoring the significance of their diplomatic efforts. The culmination of these discussions precipitated the ceasefire just days before a new administration took the reins in the United States.
This arrangement, often described as “fragile,” is steeped in the history of nearly two decades entwined in cycles of violence and deep-seated distrust, where each side perceives the other’s existence as a fundamental threat to their survival. Can anything truly change under such circumstances?
Since the implementation of the ceasefire on January 19, tensions have continued to simmer. Hamas’s display of power during a recent hostage handover and Israel’s reluctance to release Palestinian detainees highlight ongoing hostilities. While the events play out on the ground, the role of the United States will likely prove pivotal in ensuring the ceasefire’s longevity.
If this tenuous peace holds, it could well be due to Donald Trump’s insistence. This sentiment resonates deeply with the family of Guy Gilboa Dala, a 23-year-old hostage captured by Hamas and one of the 79 still held captive. Guy’s mother, in a poignant radio interview, singled out Trump as the one person she trusts to secure her son’s safe return home. Can a mother’s plea encapsulate an entire community’s yearning for resolution?
Contrast this with her lack of faith in Prime Minister Netanyahu, whose far-right coalition partners threaten to dismantle his government if the ceasefire extends beyond its initial six weeks. Trump’s recent remarks about ‘cleaning out’ Gaza and relocating its residents to Jordan and Egypt, however, have done little to bolster confidence in his leadership.
Yet, despite the provocative rhetoric, Trump’s envoy’s recent tour of the Middle East signals a continued commitment to a three-phase ceasefire plan. This plan’s success hinges on avoiding further conflict in Gaza, a factor crucial for Netanyahu’s aspirations to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia—a hallmark of Trump’s earlier administration.
As Netanyahu prepares to visit Washington, the implications of this meeting are immense. It will be the first formal engagement between the new president and a foreign leader, an event Netanyahu has lauded as a testament to their longstanding personal bond. However, one has to wonder: is this friendship strong enough to withstand the pressures of a potential new conflict?
The Israeli Prime Minister arrives with a subtle, yet unmistakable, inclination to reignite military actions in Gaza after the ceasefire’s initial phase concludes. Speculations in the Israeli media suggest that he has even instructed the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to formulate operational plans for this option.
Notably, Netanyahu has neglected to send negotiators to Doha for vital conversations regarding the ceasefire’s second phase, an omission that contravenes the agreement’s stipulations. Although Netanyahu’s office has hinted that discussions will commence as a result of meetings with Witkoff, the failure to engage by the deadline is concerning. The Qatari Prime Minister has urged a prompt start to these crucial negotiations, underscoring the absence of a clear agenda for progression.
Part of the struggle lies in the ambiguity surrounding what comes after the first phase. The overarching design of the agreement aimed for an organic transition towards a more stable ceasefire. Yet, the stark divide between the two parties looms large; they have found consensus elusive when it comes to the next steps.
The current agreement meticulously outlines the first phase but only touches lightly on the second phase. Yet, the few lines devoted to it carry significant weight. They call for a “sustainable calm,” the “permanent cessation of military operations,” and the total withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, with all existing hostages released in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. These terms could, in theory, end hostilities entirely—creating a pivotal turning point. But without a clear strategy to achieve such ambitious commitments, the outlook appears grim.
The stakes are incredibly high for tomorrow’s imminent meeting between Trump and Netanyahu. The fate of Gaza’s ceasefire might hinge on this dialogue. The Israeli Prime Minister may enter wishing to rally support for renewed military action, but he might instead confront a reality where his previous ally becomes his most significant barrier.
In sum, the future of peace in the region rests precariously upon these discussions. Will the echoes of diplomatic history resonate to forge a path forward, or will entrenched positions lead to renewed conflict? Only time will tell.
Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times International–Monitoring
