Behind the Gaza ceasefire: Political calculations and regional implications

The long-awaited ceasefire agreement in Gaza should be seen as the outcome of objective circumstances, primarily the convergence of interests between two American administrations: the outgoing Biden administration, eager to achieve a ceasefire in its final days, and the incoming Trump administration, keen to launch its term with a significant breakthrough on the Gaza file. This alignment of interests created pressures that were difficult for all parties to resist, making the ceasefire possible.

However, this interim agreement cannot be seen as the end of the crisis that began in Gaza and spread across the region. At best, it may bring significant humanitarian relief to Gaza. At the same time, with the inauguration of President Trump, who is practically credited with achieving this agreement, Israel may push forward on several unresolved issues, particularly those related to security and threats on its borders. Netanyahu’s acceptance of the Gaza ceasefire can be seen as opening the door to two main issues.

The first Is domestic, as it pertains to his government and internal political alliances, especially what Netanyahu might offer Smotrich in concessions to gain his acceptance of the agreement’s first phase, particularly following Ben Gvir’s possible resignation. This could mean granting Smotrich satisfactory concessions on the issue he has been closely involved with recently, namely, the West Bank and the official announcement of annexing parts of it.

The second is American, as Netanyahu will likely seek to address unresolved issues involving Iraq, Iran, and Yemen, which are top priorities for Israel. The initial phase of relations with the new U.S. administration could focus on shared objectives. The concessions being presented today as having forced Israel to accept the ceasefire provide Netanyahu with significant leverage to press for advances on other fronts, especially as the Trump administration positions itself as a broker of peace and regional stability. This will require addressing unresolved security matters, chief among them the Iranian influence in the region, from Iraq to Yemen and even within Iran itself.

For Hamas, the next battle will be a political one at every level; Palestinian, Arab, and international. The movement must seriously consider adopting policies closer to political pragmatism and crafting solutions to avoid future targeting. The approaches used during the negotiation phase will not suffice for the post-negotiation phase. While achieving the ceasefire is a significant milestone, it cannot be compared to the internal challenges facing everyone in Gaza.

This necessitates a genuine internal review, not only of the movement’s strategies, methods, and leaders who dominated the scene in the past phase but also of its relationships with Arab states and the role it can play moving forward. Particularly as the internationalization of Gaza has become inevitable, starting with humanitarian relief efforts and extending to the broader reconstruction process and international oversight of Gaza’s internal situation, including its borders and crossings.

Like the agreement with Lebanon, the Gaza ceasefire appears acceptable in its initial phase. However, it is undoubtedly more fragile in the subsequent stages, especially given the contradictions between some of its provisions and Israel’s desire to maintain tight security control. This includes issues related to security, surveillance, and border management, as well as Israel’s claimed right to carry out operations against what it perceives as security threats.