A fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas has sparked intense debates over who deserves credit or blame for its achievement. Was it President Trump's recent pressure on Netanyahu that made the difference, or was it his earlier support for Netanyahu's war resumption that forced Hamas to concede? Alternatively, has Hamas been willing to negotiate for over a year, with Israel as the main obstacle? Or did intense pressure from Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey in recent days push Hamas to make new concessions? Does the ceasefire implicate President Biden for not pushing Netanyahu hard enough, or is it functionally the same as the January ceasefire during Biden's term, suggesting that Israel's war resumption in March, with Trump's backing, was unnecessary? These interpretations, pushed by people with varying political and ideological leanings, reveal some areas of overlap and discrepancies.
Both Hamas and Netanyahu made significant shifts on key issues. For two years, ceasefire talks failed due to disagreements over troop withdrawal, hostage return, and postwar Gaza governance. Netanyahu's critics argue he repeatedly rejected peace efforts, while his defenders claim the war served Israel's interests by aiming to remove Hamas from power. Hamas, on the other hand, has long been willing to return hostages in exchange for an end to the war. However, Netanyahu, facing domestic and legal pressures, was reluctant to end the war unless forced by a powerful party like the US.
Leading up to the ceasefire, both sides shifted. Hamas agreed to release all remaining hostages without a timeline for Israeli troop withdrawal, something they had been reluctant to do. Netanyahu agreed to the ceasefire despite his skepticism about Hamas disarming and handing over power. Multiple reports suggest a turning point in negotiations was Israel's unsuccessful attack on Hamas negotiators in Qatar, which seemed to signal the end of Netanyahu's successful military operations.
Netanyahu's shift may have been influenced by Trump's good relations with Gulf nations and his interests in the region. The Qatar strike went too far for Trump, prompting him to intensify his efforts to end the war. Trump turned up the heat on Netanyahu, both publicly and privately, threatening to walk away from Israel if Netanyahu didn't accept the peace plan. This story portrays Trump as bold, but an alternative interpretation suggests Netanyahu, after two years of war, was ready to end it. Netanyahu's defenders argue the new ceasefire is better than previous offers, giving Israel flexibility to restart the war if needed.
Hamas also shifted its negotiating strategy, abandoning its leverage by immediately handing over all hostages. The group was essentially coerced by Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey into accepting a deal they didn't want. These nations threatened to withdraw support and stop pressing for Hamas's say in Gaza's governance if they didn't sign the peace deal. The war had weakened Hamas and its allies, sending the message that no help was coming, and things would only get worse if they held out. Hamas agreed to the deal, and now the world awaits to see if it holds.
The question remains: Was the ceasefire solely due to Trump's influence, or was Netanyahu finally ready to compromise? Assessing this is crucial in understanding if tougher pressure from President Biden could have ended the war earlier. The debate continues, with differing interpretations and viewpoints, leaving us with more questions than answers.
