On January 15, 2025, Israel and Hamas agreed to a ceasefire agreement mediated by the United States, Egypt and Qatar. The agreement, set to take effect at dawn on January 19 outlines measures for halting hostilities, facilitating a prisoner exchange and orchestrating Israel’s withdrawal from positions within the Gaza Strip. This agreement followed 15 months of intense and unprecedented violence, resulting in nearly 50,000 Palestinian deaths and the complete destruction of Gaza. The conflict’s regional repercussions have been significant, involving new players and conflict arenas against Israel, pushing the region to the brink of a full-scale war. This report analyzes the agreement — its implications and challenges, evaluating its potential for sustainable peace.
The Context and Details of the Ceasefire Deal
The agreement followed numerous failed attempts, largely because of Israeli political calculations and Netanyahu’s desire to avoid legal accountability including charges of corruption and accusations of negligence related to Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attack. Hence, Netanyahu prioritized a decisive victory over Hamas to dismantle its capacity to threaten Israel again. This position was premised on Netanyahu’s belief of a historic opportunity, enhanced by unprecedented US backing for a transformative shift in the Palestinian cause, strong popular support for right-wing policies and consensus in his ruling coalition.
Hamas had previously rejected all ceasefire proposals, insisting that any agreement should include Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. The group also reiterated demands related to the exchange of prisoners, which Israel rejected, instead, depending on its significant military advantage and the targeting of civilians as leverage. International pressure, particularly from the United States, proved largely ineffective, even in the face of massive humanitarian losses caused by the conflict.
A multi-stage agreement was eventually finalized after rigorous mediation efforts by Qatar, Egypt and the United States. Thus far, only the details of the first phase, set to last 42 days, have been disclosed. The mediators have provided assurances to exert pressure on Israel and Hamas to ensure progress to the subsequent phases. The first phase includes the following:
- – A temporary ceasefire, including a suspension of Israeli military and reconnaissance air operations over Gaza for 10 hours daily, extended to 12 hours on days when detainees and prisoners are released. The agreement also mandates the complete dismantling of military installations within the Gaza Strip.
- -Israeli forces withdrawing eastward, away from populated areas, repositioning 700 meters inside the pre-October 7 borders. Israeli forces in the Philadelphi Corridor to be reduced based on maps agreed upon by both sides.
- – Israel releasing approximately 2,000 prisoners in the first phase, including 250 serving life sentences and around 1,000 detained after October 7, 2023. Hamas to release 33 prisoners, with their release staggered throughout the first phase. These mutual exchanges ensure parallel progress on the ground.
- – Displaced residents allowed to return to their homes following the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza population centers, with freedom of movement restored.
- -The Rafah Border Crossing opened to facilitate the entry of humanitarian aid, including access to northern Gaza. The agreement also outlines detailed timelines for the exchange of prisoners and troop withdrawal, with Israel committing to a complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip within 50 days of the agreement’s implementation.
Decisive Action
The United States played a key role in brokering the agreement, with contributions from both the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration. President Joe Biden presented a ceasefire proposal in May 2024 and oversaw multiple negotiation rounds involving Cairo and Doha to finalize the current agreement. Biden asserted that the agreement adheres to the “broad outlines” of his May proposal. Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken credited the Biden administration’s unwavering support for Israel as a factor that pressured Hamas into accepting the terms of the agreement.
President Donald Trump attempted to claim credit for the agreement, citing his stern warnings of unleashing hell if an agreement was not reached before his inauguration on January 20, 2025. He also emphasized that his envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, who actively participated in the final negotiations, visited Israel, and exerted pressure on Netanyahu to accept the terms of the agreement. Despite the rivalry between the Democrats and Republicans, the agreement underscores consensus and the United States’ significant and active role in finalizing the agreement.
Egypt and Qatar were also critical in ensuring the agreement was finalized because of their continuous efforts spanning 15 months since the onset of the conflict. Egypt leveraged its geographical proximity to Gaza, its longstanding connections with the Gaza Strip and the significance of the Palestinian issue to its national security and peace agreements with Israel. Similarly, Qatar’s influence stems from its active engagement in regional conflicts and strong ties to Hamas and other Palestinian factions. The two countries remain central to the agreement’s success, as it includes provisions for an Egyptian-Qatari committee to oversee the return of displaced persons from southern Gaza to the north.
Reactions
The agreement has sparked extensive reactions, as it is seen as a potential turning point in a conflict which has had significant regional and international ramifications. The reactions reflect the gains and losses for the various parties involved in the conflict. The reactions can be split into two categories: those welcoming the agreement and those opposing the agreement
Pro-agreement:
Palestinians, particularly those who have endured devastating losses since the onset of the war, welcomed the agreement with widespread relief. With the Gaza Strip rendered uninhabitable due to relentless destruction, news of the agreement prompted residents to take to the ruined streets in celebration. For many, the agreement represents a glimmer of hope — halting the cycle of killing and destruction, facilitating the return to their homes, allowing the entry of much-needed aid amid widespread hunger and poverty and opening the door to reconstruction. Most notably, the planned withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip is seen as a victory, with Palestinian factions framing the agreement as a testament to the people’s resilience and sacrifices. The celebration extended beyond Gaza, with those supporting the Palestinian cause in various countries also welcoming the cessation of hostilities. Pro-Palestine demonstrations took place in the UK, Morocco, Jordan, Türkiye and other countries, reflecting the global significance of the agreement.
The agreement was also met with approval from a significant portion of the Israeli public, including families of prisoners as well as left-wing groups opposed to Netanyahu and his government. These groups view the cessation of hostilities as an opportunity to hold Netanyahu accountable for the failures surrounding the October 7 attack and to exploit the potential rift within his coalition, which could lead to the collapse of his government and early elections that may allow the opposition to regain power. The agreement was also warmly received by regional and international actors. Regional powers welcomed it as a means of preventing further escalation in the region. Internationally, the agreement was praised at both the official and grassroots levels.
Among those countries that praised the agreement is Saudi Arabia, which played a key role in attempting to contain the conflict. The kingdom made significant endeavors to bring the war to an end. Saudi Arabia commended the efforts of the mediators and emphasized the importance of all parties to adhere to the terms of the agreement. The kingdom underscored the need for this agreement to pave the way for a comprehensive solution to the conflict, one that would allow the Palestinian people to achieve their rights, including the establishment of an independent Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Anti-agreement
It appears that the Israeli government faced significant pressure to the agreement, a fact reflected in Netanyahu’s decision to remain out of the public eye when announcing it. Under pressure from the United States, Netanyahu had to push his extremist coalition members, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, to accept the agreement, despite their strong opposition. Smotrich criticized the agreement, calling it “bad” and “dangerous to Israel’s national security,” while Zvi Sukkot from the Religious Zionist Party labeled it “catastrophic” and described it as Israel surrendering to Hamas. In fact, the party may resign from the government in protest. There seems to be widespread disappointment across the Israeli right-wing, as protests were organized to condemn the agreement, including road blockades near Jerusalem. Many right-wingers had been hoping for Trump’s support to further their hardline policies against Palestinians, but they were clearly disappointed by the agreement’s signing.
Implications and Challenges
The agreement marks a significant diplomatic achievement for the United States, reinforcing its influence in the Middle East while highlighting the more limited roles of Russia and China. According to Blinken, US allies and partners in the region have come to recognize which actors can be trusted for crisis management and which ones either remain passive or worsen tensions. This agreement has enhanced the perception of the United States as a central player in resolving regional conflicts.
The agreement also serves Trump’s interests, easing a major crisis before his inauguration. By using his influence, Trump showcased his strength and potentially can leverage this success to achieve further international breakthroughs. This includes advancing the Israeli-Saudi normalization process, reshaping regional dynamics in favor of the United States and possibly using the momentum to push forward peace efforts between Russia and Ukraine. Additionally, the agreement aligns with Trump’s desire to project US influence and his vision of peace through strength, ultimately to enhance his political standing.
The Israel-Hamas agreement has created an opportunity to end the ongoing war in Gaza and address the unprecedented humanitarian crisis. It may also signal a shift in Israeli politics, potentially diminishing the dominance of the right-wing and its radical stance on the Palestinian issue. This shift could pave the way for a government more open to regional and international initiatives focused on development, coexistence and peace rather than ideological policies that perpetuate conflict. The agreement could usher in a period of stability and calm. It might provide a foundation for advancing the settlement process and contribute to resolving broader regional tensions, including the attacks by the Houthis on tankers in the Red Sea. This would contribute to the resumption of trade flows, benefiting countries like Egypt, which has seen a decline in revenues from the Suez Canal due to Houthi attacks. Additionally, the deal would benefit shipping companies that have faced increased costs from using alternative routes around the African continent. The agreement would also help mitigate the environmental damage caused by the sinking of oil tankers due to Houthi attacks.
However, there are some challenges that could hinder the effectiveness of this deal, including:
Lack of Guarantees:
The agreement does not provide specifics regarding the second and third phases, depending instead on verbal assurances from the United States, Egypt and Qatar to continue pushing for a comprehensive deal. These guarantees do not ensure the implementation of the later phases within the six-week window.
Temporary Ceasefire:
The agreement does not establish an immediate or permanent ceasefire. Instead, it proposes a testing phase during which the possibility of ending the war will be evaluated. Israel’s reluctance to provide written guarantees suggests a risk that the conflict could resume once the initial phase ends. Some indication of this scenario is already evident as Israel continued its assault on civilians and Netanyahu’s office accused Hamas of backing out of parts of the agreement — moves that can be seen as a prelude to evading the aspects of the agreement viewed as unacceptable to his right-wing coalition partners.
Delayed Withdrawal:
The agreement lacks a specific timeline for Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, which could lead to security complications or Israel potentially reneging on this aspect. This uncertainty could impact efforts to return displaced people.
Gaza Governance:
The agreement does not address who will govern Gaza following the ceasefire. The United States prefers a revamped Palestinian Authority, while Israel and regional actors are driven by a desire to end Hamas’ control, which is complicated by the group’s military capabilities.
Reconstruction Challenges:
Reconstruction efforts are hindered by the ongoing control of Hamas over Gaza. Israel and the United States are wary of allowing reconstruction if it could lead to the rebuilding of Hamas’ military capabilities.
Israeli Government Intentions:
The Israeli cabinet has yet to vote on the agreement, and it contradicts the positions of many right-wing members of Netanyahu’s government who have used Hamas’ presence in Gaza to justify the continuation of the conflict.
Ambiguity About the Palestinian Issue:
The agreement does not address the broader issue of the Palestinian conflict, including the possibility of a two-state solution or settlement. Without a comprehensive agreement, Israeli policies, such as expanding settlements in the West Bank and violations at Al-Aqsa Mosque, will contribute to the ongoing uncertainty and potential for future conflict.
Conclusion
The ceasefire agreement represents a significant breakthrough in a longstanding regional crisis, with various factors supporting its potential success. These include US political will, represented by both the Biden and the incoming Trump administrations. Trump’s desire to assert global influence through this agreement and the need to mitigate the negative impact of the crisis on the United States’ global standing further enhance the agreement’s prospects. The agreement also opens up opportunities to advance US strategy in the region that aims to reshape relations and the balance of power, particularly after successfully neutralizing Chinese and Russian involvement and delivering a setback to Iran and its allies. However, there are considerable challenges, including frustration within the Israeli right wing, and the incomplete, fragmented phases of the agreement that do not guarantee a sustainable ceasefire.
Overall, this agreement offers a moment for relief and an opportunity to learn from the past. It paves the way for pursuing a comprehensive peace agreement that acknowledges Palestinian rights, gives hope for a Palestinian state and aligns with the aspirations of the Arab people. Therefore, it remains crucial to continue efforts and collaborate with the new US administration to rectify past mistakes and address the suffering of the Palestinian people.
