The Gaza cease-fire agreement took effect on Jan. 19, halting the 15-month conflict. Whether this is a temporary lull or a permanent condition hang in the balance and remains the biggest source of uncertainty.
At first glance, the agreement holds the promise of ending the war once and for all. It is structured in three phases: The first, which lasts for 42 days, includes Hamas releasing 33 hostages and Israel partially withdrawing its forces from Gaza. The second phase, also 42 days, entails Hamas releasing all remaining hostages and a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, thereby bringing military operations to an end. The third phase focuses on postwar reconstruction.However, upon closer examination, the cease-fire appears to be more temporary. Currently, Hamas and Israel have only reached consensus on the first phase. Negotiations for a permanent cease-fire in the second phase will commence on the 16th day of the first phase, with the outcome uncertain. Talks could either succeed or fail, which means that a permanent cease-fire is not yet assured.A deeper analysis suggests that the agreement could pave the way for a permanent cease-fire. Hamas had requested a written guarantee from the United States to ensure a seamless transition from the first phase to the second and to prevent Israel from resuming hostilities once the first phase concludes. Ultimately, the U.S. offered verbal assurance: If the first phase is completed and negotiations for a permanent cease-fire in the second phase have not yet concluded, Israel is prohibited from resuming the war and must continue negotiations until an agreement is reached.In theory, if an agreement is reached, Israel will end the war; and even if no agreement is reached, Israel cannot resume the war. If the verbal assurance of the United States is reliable, then the war is effectively over. Thus, while Hamas insists that a permanent cease-fire agreement is in place, Israel publicly declares it to be temporary.
The framework for this three-phase cease-fire agreement was proposed as early as the end of May last year. The fundamental reason it could not be carried out earlier was the issue of a permanent cease-fire. Hamas insisted that Israel must commit to a permanent cease-fire before beginning the temporary cease-fire of the first phase, while Israel firmly opposed the idea of a permanent cease-fire.This time, the agreement was reached because Hamas made a significant concession. Instead of demanding that Israel commits to a permanent cease-fire up front, Hamas pushed the issue out 42 days. This day will inevitably come, and Israel will have to make a strategic choice that it is reluctant to face.
Since the beginning of the Gaza conflict on Oct. 7, 2023, Israel has set two major war objectives — the complete elimination of Hamas and the rescue of all hostages, which it has referred to as “total victory” or “decisive victory.” The goal of rescuing all hostages is straightforward — to bring back the 251 hostages. However, the objective of eliminating Hamas is open to interpretation. Ultimately, Israel has defined this goal as the destruction of Hamas's organized military forces and the dismantling of its governance. From the very beginning, Israel knew that these two goals were contradictory and could not be pursued simultaneously.Israel now has to choose between them in sequence. However, Israeli political parties and politicians have been unwilling to bear the cost of making that choice. Instead, they have repeatedly emphasized that both goals were equally important and had to be achieved in parallel.
Israel has now reached a moment of reckoning. If it prioritizes the complete elimination of Hamas, a permanent cease-fire will remain out of reach, and the war will continue. Hamas is still the dominant military force in the area, with at least one battalion of organized troops in central Gaza. Israel has been holding its fire against this battalion because it believes most hostages are held there.On the first day of the cease-fire, Hamas police started patrolling the streets to maintain order. Clearly, if the first phase is successfully implemented, Hamas's control over Gaza will be further consolidated, not weakened, and certainly not eliminated. Therefore, Israel may refuse to agree on the second phase and resume the war to eliminate Hamas. Of course, Israel might also choose to eliminate Hamas after achieving a permanent cease-fire and rescuing all hostages. But in any case, the war will not end, as Israel will not tolerate any role for Hamas in the future governance of Gaza.
If Israel prioritizes rescuing all hostages, the war must end, and Hamas will inevitably maintain a significant presence in Gaza. To rescue all hostages, the second-phase agreement is the most viable path. However, this would mean that Israel's goal of eliminating Hamas cannot be achieved. Hamas's military and governance structures would survive, a scenario that many Israelis might find repulsive. Israel faces a dilemma where it wants both to rescue hostages and end the war, yet it is unwilling to accept Hamas's continued presence in Gaza.
For Israel, choosing between war and peace feels like a Hobson's choice, which is precisely why a decision keeps being delayed. However, indecision comes at a cost. The prolonged conflict and the lack of a postwar governance plan for Gaza are the consequences.
