‘Israel-Hamas Ceasefire and Related Developments’

Hamas-Israel ceasefire deal is a complex mix of gains and setback for both parties

The Gaza ceasefire has brought an end to hostilities, marking a turning point in the Israel-Palestine conflict with a complex mix of gains and setbacks for both Hamas and Israel. Although the truce comes with significant challenges, it has reshaped global narratives and public discourse, creating a window of opportunity for Palestinians to push for reconstruction and long-term resolutions.

This was observed in a session on January 17, 2025 after a presentation by Junior Research Officer Muhammad Waleed, on the terms and details of the Gaza ceasefire deal.

The ceasefire agreement, structured in three phases, is aimed at de-escalating hostilities in Gaza. The first phase focuses on the release of Israeli captives in exchange for Palestinian prisoners and an initial pause in fighting. The second phase is intended to extend the ceasefire, potentially leading to a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. The third phase would aim to initiate long-term reconstruction efforts and a sustainable political resolution.

However, significant challenges remain, including Israel’s firm stance on refusing to provide written guarantees against resuming attacks once the first phase is completed. This raises concerns about the sustainability of peace and the potential for renewed escalation. Moreover, the political and security landscape in post-ceasefire Gaza remains uncertain, with concerns over governance, reconstruction, and stability.

The discussion noted that the ceasefire has brought mixed outcomes for both Hamas and Israel. Hamas has demonstrated resilience, managing to recover timely by expanding its recruitment and retaining control over key areas. Its ability to sustain prolonged conflict has shaped its image among its supporters as a symbol of Palestinian resistance. However, the extensive destruction in Gaza, civilian casualties, and ongoing humanitarian crises remain significant setbacks.

On the other hand, even though Israel was unable to reaffirm its military superiority, it maintained strong backing from the US. The conflict has also exposed internal political divisions in Israel and its failure to fully dismantle Hamas’s operational capabilities. Additionally, global public opinion has increasingly shifted, with widespread criticism of Israel’s actions and ideology.

In his remarks, Khalid Rahman highlighted the implications of the evolving geopolitical landscape on conflict, particularly in the context of the US, which had previously initiated the Abraham Accords to encourage Arab states to recognize Israel. He noted that the US, which has been a traditional ally of Israel, under the new leadership, may pursue a similar strategy, prioritizing domestic politics and congressional influence over direct mediation in the region.

Additionally, internal divisions within Israel between leftist and rightist factions and the cautiousness of Arab states have resulted in a delicate regional balance. Meanwhile, recent developments demonstrated the minimal role of the UN in shaping the resolution, raising concerns over the lack of an international framework to ensure lasting stability.

He also discussed the shifting global power dynamics with regard to declining US global influence and China’s restrained, strategic stance, described as a “strength in silence” approach. He noted that these developments collectively shape the broader geopolitical discourse surrounding the ceasefire and its implications for regional and global stability.