CIVICUS discusses the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas with Yossi Mekelberg, Professor of International Relations and Senior Consulting Fellow at Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.

Israel and Hamas reached a ceasefire agreement in January after 16 months of conflict, through negotiations mediated by Egypt, Qatar and the USA. The deal closely resembles the proposal put forward by the Biden administration in May 2024, prompting questions about why it wasn’t approved earlier, when it could have prevented significant loss of life. The agreement outlines a three-phase, six-week ceasefire designed to facilitate urgent aid delivery, secure the release of hostages and begin Gaza’s reconstruction. However, the fragile nature of the agreement means even a minor incident could derail the process. Its long-term success will depend on sustained international pressure to maintain all parties’ commitment.

What led to the ceasefire agreement, and why did it take so long?

The negotiation process was long and complex, spanning 16 months of missed opportunities and escalating devastation. The bloodshed began with the Hamas massacre on 7 October and only intensified with what many consider a disproportionate response by Israel, leading to tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths and widespread destruction in Gaza. The violence spilled over into Iran, Lebanon and Syria, and now it’s also affecting the West Bank.

There were chances to sign an agreement back in March and again in July, under the Biden administration, but political constraints – particularly Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s fears about losing his coalition while facing a corruption trial – meant those opportunities were lost. Only when Donald Trump insisted on reaching an agreement before he came into office was the deal approved. What’s most striking is how minor the differences are between Biden’s proposal and the approved text, particularly when weighed against the human cost of the delay. If an agreement had been reached earlier, many more hostages might have returned and thousands of lives could have been saved in Gaza.

Even so, this three-phase agreement is welcome because it includes a ceasefire, the return of hostages, the release of prisoners, the return of displaced Palestinians to their homes and, most importantly, the entry of humanitarian aid to Gaza.

What are the key components of each phase?

In the first phase, Hamas agreed to release 33 hostages while Israel committed to freeing Palestinian prisoners, generally at a higher ratio of about one to 60, sometimes more. This phase also allowed for the return of displaced Palestinians to their homes and saw the entry of up to 600 trucks of humanitarian aid into Gaza – a critical step, particularly given the harsh winter and the immediate needs of those who have lost their homes.

The second phase is far more complicated, as both sides are going to be stripped of what they see as their main assets. For Israel, it demands a commitment to ending further violence, a point that has proved highly contentious within its political elite. For Hamas and its allies, this phase involves exchanging additional hostages, whether alive or dead, in which case it must return their bodies. Both sides are aware any misstep could lead to resumption of the conflict, making negotiations extremely delicate. As a result, both parties are demanding guarantees the violence will not restart.

The third and final phase focuses on Gaza’s reconstruction. Here, Israel insists Hamas must not take any governing role in the territory. This phase also aims to address the broader humanitarian crisis, ensuring those who survived the war don’t die from a lack of hospital care. The focus is on alleviating the acute suffering of older people, women, the unborn and the newly born due to the lack of food, essential medicines and clean water.

Achieving justice will be challenging and take time. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for three former Hamas leaders who are now dead and for Netanyahu and his former defence minister. However, the new US administration’s intention to impose sanctions on the ICC further complicates matters. This will probably mean many people won’t get the justice they deserve.

How is adherence to the ceasefire being ensured?

Although mediators are working to enforce it, deep-seated mistrust underpins the entire process and both sides accuse each other of violating the agreement. This is resulting in weekly instances of brinkmanship. For instance, Hamas recently refused a hostage-for-prisoner swap until mediators intervened and restored the temporary agreement.

Political pressures within each side further complicate the process. Some leaders aren’t convinced ending the war serves their best interests.

The whole process is very fragile, which is why the pressure exerted on both sides by mediators and external actors is so crucial. But some external influences, such as Trump’s, only add to an atmosphere of chaos and uncertainty. Ultimately, if either side stops honouring the agreement or disregards the mediators’ guidance, the ceasefire could collapse and violence would restart.

Will this agreement alter regional dynamics?

The conflict has already shifted regional relationships. Some examples of this are the involvement of Iran and groups such as Hezbollah in the conflict, the attacks in Lebanon and the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria.

We are also seeing talks about the normalisation of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia on condition of progress on the Palestinian issue. However, if Trump keeps promoting the full displacement of Palestinians out of Gaza to Egypt and Jordan, this could destabilise relations with these neighbouring countries. The thing with Trump is you never know whether his statements are tactical, with him proposing the most extreme ideas to push others to come up with something reasonable, or if he really means them.

How can lasting peace be achieved?

The international community must learn that if they leave a conflict to fester and all they do is invest in conflict management instead of tackling the root causes of a dispute, what they get is an explosive cycle of violence. Failure to resolve fundamental issues has led to catastrophic loss of life and widespread devastation.

While the ceasefire may offer some temporary relief, it doesn’t address core issues such as self-determination demands, equal rights, the status of Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, borders and natural resources. To achieve lasting peace, everyone living in historic Palestine – whether in Gaza, the West Bank or Israel – must come together to confront these underlying challenges.

Rather than focusing on managing conflict, the international community should prioritise prevention and peacebuilding. True peace requires an inclusive approach, where everyone involved has a voice. You don’t need to like the people you’re negotiating with, but involving them in the process is essential.

However, the international community has already showed it’s incapable of solving conflicts quickly, as we’ve also seen in Ukraine. The inability of the United Nations to even pass a resolution on this case shows how the post-1945 world order needs updating. We need more effective and inclusive global governance institutions that can quickly bring wars to an end.