The Gaza Agreement: Opportunities for Consensus
Al-Ittihad, UAE, January 25
Following the announcement of the phased implementation of the Gaza agreement, a pertinent question lingers: Has Hamas truly benefited from the agreement, or has Israel suffered a loss? The answer lies in the grim reality within the Strip, now in ruins, with Israel occupying a significant portion—up to 30%. Israel remains adamant about exercising its freedom to act and directly intervene if Hamas engages in any activities, establishing the Strip as a persistent security threat.
This stance is tied to Israel’s commitments during the initial implementation phase and much depends on how the situation in the Strip unfolds and Hamas’ potential resurgence. This scenario foretells a political vacuum, absent any authority represented by institutional governance on the ground, apart from Hamas’ fragmented institutions, whose service and security frameworks might have disintegrated but persist in a compelling media narrative, signifying that Hamas’ presence endures, albeit in a different form.
Hamas places its bets on its involvement in the evolving Palestinian political landscape, with certain factions endeavoring to reconstitute Palestinian presence through initiatives like the Community Support Committee. This persisting vacuum is set to fuel instability in operations and movements, whether concerning aid delivery or border crossings, underscoring that the passage of trucks is just one piece of a larger puzzle.
Numerous issues loom over short-term responses, particularly with Israel’s refusal to permit any Hamas security presence, prompting the group to pivot internally and execute gradual strategies that might impede the agreement’s progress, ultimately relegating it to a singular, unfinished phase.
Give the gift of hope
We practice what we preach:
accurate, fearless journalism. But we can't do it alone.
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
Join us.
Support The Media Line. Save democracy.
The success or failure of this agreement rests on Hamas’s conduct, Israel’s adherence to its obligations, and the expeditious international efforts to foster stability and seriousness in its execution—an arduous task requiring a substantial commitment beyond mere aid by pressuring Hamas to align and participate cooperatively.
For Israel, this is no simple endeavor, especially since efforts to derail the agreement have been evident from the outset, posing a constant threat of sabotage despite the Israeli government’s forward momentum. The actions of extremist ministers, bordering on the puerile—such as resignations or threats thereof—begin to reflect Israeli public apprehensions about impending developments.
Amid this context, it is crucial to recognize Israel’s military establishment pushing to operationalize the agreement from its perspective, akin to prior engagements on the Lebanese front, although Israel continues to violate the terms daily. Consequently, withdrawals from the Netzarim Corridor will adhere to specified mechanisms designed to enable Israeli responses across scenarios, particularly as vacating urban fringes facilitates swift military incursions for rapid deployment.
With looming fears of genuine confrontations, should the Israeli government opt for military actions, it will tread cautiously, navigating pressures from President Trump’s administration. However, the primary challenge remains implementing the full breadth of the agreement, a daunting issue necessitating guarantees surpassing mere security or strategic alignments.
Should circumstances deteriorate, Israel may find itself reoccupying the entirety of the Strip and initiating fresh protocols, notwithstanding the substantial losses and costs incurred by such a move, underscoring fears of embarking on this path.
Hence, claims by the government of having succeeded in undermining Hamas’ military potential and eradicating its ground presence fall short—even if partially—in securing post-conflict gains, compelling a return to indirect discussions with Hamas. The situation is mired in uncertainty, potentially destabilizing the Israeli public’s confidence in government policies, amid a pronounced lack of consensus among its coalition and rising worries about public opinion backlash, which threatens to disrupt stability.
The evident and severe losses endured on Israel’s side remain undeniable, and absolute security has dimmed, with recent policies woven into Israel’s political and strategic tapestry. Regardless, Israel grapples with the absence of a counterpart to forge an understanding, perpetually tethering the situation in waiting for significant shifts in security and administrative dynamics within the Strip, contingent upon genuine, robust agreements considering all feasible scenarios and party actions, alongside initiatives from Arab, American, and European actors. —Tarek Fahmy (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)
