he temporary ceasefire agreement, brokered between Israel and Hamas on Jauary 16, marks a significant yet precarious development in the history of their conflict. While providing a much-needed respite from the devastating violence in Gaza, the agreement is fraught with complexities stemming from deeply rooted political, ideological and territorial disputes. Mediated significantly by the United States and Qatar, the agreement reflects the convergence of global and regional diplomatic efforts, underscoring the interplay of international geopolitics and local dynamics. While this accord addresses immediate humanitarian and strategic imperatives, its ability to pave the way for lasting peace remains uncertain.

Set to commence on January 19, the ceasefire is structured in three phases. The first phase introduces a 42-day cessation of hostilities. During this period, Hamas is to release 33 hostages, prioritising women, children and elderly men, in exchange for the liberation of over a thousand Palestinian prisoners held by Israel. This phase is to be complemented by the facilitation of humanitarian aid to Gaza, permitting the entry of approximately 600 aid trucks daily. The second phase envisages further negotiations on the release of all remaining hostages, alongside discussions surrounding Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. The final phase focuses on long-term reconstruction under international supervision, with an estimated timeline of three to five years. These phases suggest a gradual approach to conflict de-escalation, though their success hinges on the sustained commitment of the parties, particularly Israel whose far right elements may not be pleased with this deal.

The factors contributing to this ceasefire are multifaceted and rooted in a confluence of domestic, regional and global considerations. On the international stage, the US played a pivotal role in mediating this deal. The Biden administration faced mounting domestic and international criticism over its unwavering support for Israeli regime during its military operations in Gaza, which had escalated into a humanitarian catastrophe. Images of civilian casualties and the destruction of vital infrastructure in Gaza drew sharp rebukes from the global community and intensifying calls for Washington to leverage its influence to halt the genocidal war. Moreover, for the US, brokering the ceasefire provided an opportunity to demonstrate its diplomatic clout, reaffirm its commitment to regional stability and mitigate damage to its international standing. Simultaneously, it enabled Washington to address domestic concerns, as public opinion within the country increasingly called for a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Regionally, Qatar emerged as an indispensable actor in facilitating backdoor negotiations. Leveraging its longstanding relationship with Hamas and its history of mediating in previous conflicts, Doha positioned itself as a critical intermediary. Importantly, its engagement was instrumental in securing Hamas’s consent to release hostages, a move that bolstered its credibility as a diplomatic hub in the region. It reflects Qatar’s pragmatic approach to leveraging soft power to navigate the highly polarised landscape of the Middle East, thus, reinforcing its role as an indispensable player in regional diplomacy.

For Israel, the ceasefire represents a calculated tactical decision aimed at achieving several objectives without compromising its overarching security posture. Domestically, the agreement addresses growing public pressure to secure the release of hostages held by the Hamas. The exchange of hostages for Palestinian prisoners, though contentious, offers a politically expedient solution to a highly emotive issue. Moreover, the pause in military operations allows Israel to recalibrate its strategy, address the logistical challenges of its campaign in Gaza and manage international criticism of its military actions. In addition, humanitarian aid provisions embedded in the deal serve to temper global outrage over the dire conditions in Gaza, potentially alleviating diplomatic pressure on Israel.

The first phase introduces a 42-day cessation of hostilities. During this period, Hamas is to release 33 hostages, prioritising women, children and elderly men, in exchange for the liberation of over a thousand Palestinian prisoners held by Israel. This phase is to be complemented by the facilitation of humanitarian aid to Gaza, permitting the entry of approximately 600 aid trucks daily.

Hamas, too, derives significant benefits from the ceasefire. The release of over a thousand Palestinian prisoners enhances its standing among the Palestinians, thus, bolstering its image as a defender of Palestinian rights and resistance. The cessation of hostilities provides Hamas with a reprieve to consolidate its position in Gaza, regroup its forces and engage in political maneuvering. Nonetheless, Hamas’s gains are tempered by the heightened international scrutiny it faces and the challenges of navigating a highly volatile political environment. The group’s ability to leverage the ceasefire for long-term political advantage remains contingent on its capacity to present itself as a legitimate political actor while it continues fighting.

Despite the temporary relief offered by the ceasefire, its potential to facilitate a lasting resolution to the conflict is fraught with significant challenges. The underlying causes of the Israel-Palestine conflict territorial disputes, the blockade of Gaza, the status of Jerusalem and the broader question of Palestinian statehood remain unresolved. The phased nature of the ceasefire agreement suggests an incremental approach to addressing these issues, yet it is unclear whether either side possesses the political will or flexibility to engage in the substantive dialogue necessary for a durable resolution. The deal’s emphasis on humanitarian aid and reconstruction, while commendable, risks addressing symptoms rather than the root causes of the conflict. Without concurrent efforts to tackle the structural drivers of violence and instability, these measures may provide only temporary respite.

The reconstruction of Gaza, envisioned as part of the deal’s later phases, presents both opportunities and risks. International involvement in rebuilding Gaza’s infrastructure could foster stability and economic recovery, particularly if coupled with initiatives to strengthen governance and promote social cohesion. However, the reconstruction process is likely to be fraught with challenges, including ensuring equitable distribution of aid, mitigating corruption and addressing the political and ideological divides within the Palestinian society. Notably, the success of reconstruction efforts would depend on sustained international commitment, which may waver in the face of competing global priorities.

Last but not the least, this temporary ceasefire highlights the fragility of regional and global alliances. While the US and Qatar have played critical roles in brokering the deal, their ability to sustain the momentum would depend on navigating the complexities of regional geopolitics. Other actors, such as Egypt and Turkey, could either bolster or complicate efforts to stabilise Gaza, depending on their interests and alignments. In addition, the broader geopolitical environment, including the evolving dynamics of US-China competition in the region and the role of Iran, adds layers of complexity to the conflict’s trajectory. These factors underscore the need for a multilateral approach to peace building, one that incorporates diverse regional and international stakeholders.

Finally, the temporary ceasefire reached between Israel and Hamas reflects a moment of cautious optimism in a deeply entrenched and volatile conflict. It demonstrates the potential of diplomatic mediation and the importance of global and regional cooperation in addressing acute crises. The ceasefire’s durability and capacity to foster lasting peace depend on the willingness of the stakeholders to move beyond tactical concessions and engage in meaningful dialogue aimed at addressing the structural drivers of conflict. Without such efforts, the ceasefire risks becoming yet another temporary pause in a cycle of violence that has defined the Gaza-Israel conflict for decades. While the ceasefire deal marks an important step toward de-escalation, it must be viewed as the beginning of a broad process rather than an end in itself.

The writer has a PhD in political science from Heidelberg University and a post-doc from University of California, Berkeley. He is a DAAD, FDDI and Fulbright fellow and an associate professor at Lahore School of Economics. He can be reached at ejaz.bhatty@gmail.com.