After fifteen months of relentless violence, peace, though in a fragile form, is finally returning to Gaza and its 2.2 million unfortunate citizens. The long-awaited ceasefire between Israel and Hamas brokered by the United States, Qatar and Egypt commenced after a three-hour delay at 11:15 AM local time on 19 January as Hamas named the three female hostages it plans to free. Celebrations broke out throughout the war-torn enclave, while some Palestinians started to return to their homes, though the delay highlighted the tenuous nature of the agreement. During the initial 42-day phase of the ceasefire, a total of 33 Israeli hostages are expected to be returned from Gaza, along with the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners and detainees.
It is pertinent to note here that the terms of the current agreement are essentially identical to those suggested by the Biden administration more than eight months ago. So, what has changed in those months? It is widely believed that the victory of Donald Trump in the US presidential elections, and especially a comment made by him on 7 January, were the trigger for the quick agreement of both parties for the ceasefire. “All hell will break out. If those hostages aren’t back, I don’t want to hurt your negotiation, if they’re not back by the time I get into office, all hell will break out in the Middle East,” Trump had told reporters. At that time, many analysts wondered what more harm could Trump cause Hamas that Israel hadn’t already done? However, Trump’s message, it appears, wasn’t truly directed at Hamas; it might have been intended for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Also Read
Arab leaders had been urging the Biden administration for months to take steps for a ceasefire but to no avail. The reluctance of Biden and his team likely stemmed from concerns about losing Jewish-American votes and political donations ahead of the US elections. Additionally, they seemed cautious about providing Republicans with a chance to claim that Democrats were abandoning a crucial ally in the Middle East. However, the dynamics changed dramatically the moment Trump returned to power. Trump’s pressure tactics and warnings successfully reinvigorated the stalled negotiations. Netanyahu, for his part, was also apprehensive that antagonizing Trump could jeopardize other efforts he sought support for, such as stronger measures against Tehran and shielding himself from Arab demands for a two-state solution. Also, Netanyahu has become highly unpopular among Israelis – at least half of the country’s electorate doesn’t support him. Many Israelis are unwilling to forgive him for allowing the 7 October terror attack to happen in the first place.
Meanwhile, negotiations for the significantly more challenging second phase of the ceasefire are set to commence in just over two weeks. Key issues remain unresolved, such as whether hostilities will resume after the initial six-week period and how the remaining nearly 100 hostages in Gaza will be released. These questions arise because Israel has not met its primary war objective, as stated by Netanyahu, which is the annihilation of Hamas. Likewise, Hamas has not achieved its aim of destroying Israel. The leaders responsible for the terrorist attacks on 7 October, 2023 are no longer alive, and the organisation’s capabilities have been greatly diminished. However, it has managed to endure, which its supporters interpret as a triumph of Palestinian resilience.
The war in Gaza, like all other mindless conflicts, had a huge human cost. According to Gaza’s Health Ministry, more than 46,000 Palestinians have lost their lives, most of them being women and children. Besides, approximately 90 per cent of the population in Gaza has been displaced. The United Nations reports that the health system, road infrastructure, and other essential facilities have suffered significant damage. If the ceasefire is fully established, the rebuilding process is expected to take several years.
With one war coming to a pause, for the time being, all eyes are now on the other theatre in Europe. Can Trump, who assumes office on 20 January, end the Ukraine war in his promised “one day?” While the strong arms of the US have reached the Middle East, they appear weaker when it comes to crossing the Atlantic. It is easier for the US to influence an ally like Israel, but equally difficult to tame Vladimir Putin. The US has managed to broker a ceasefire in Gaza, but doing the same in Ukraine, where an older war has been going on, seems a remote possibility. Besides, Trump’s territorial claim over Greenland, close to 5,000 kilometres away from the nearest point in US mainland, doesn’t serve the US cause. While Trump has claimed that US ownership of Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, is about “protecting the free world,” it’s difficult to see how NATO would view the use of military force against Greenland as anything other than an armed attack on one of its members. Trump’s threats have already put NATO in a spot. He must understand that a weaker NATO means a stronger Russia and diminished US influence as the “world’s policeman.”
