Fragile Hope: The Israel-Hamas Ceasefire and Hostage-Prisoner Deal

By Randy Pinsky

 

On January 19, 2025, a negotiated ceasefire and hostage-prisoner exchange deal came into effect between Israel and Hamas. Mediated by the US, Qatar and Egypt, the agreement entailed three phases involving the gradual return of the hostages, a cessation of hostilities and increased humanitarian aid to Gaza. While the fragile peace is holding, many worry about the long-term implications and permanence.

What is the Deal?

The ceasefire agreement has been viewed with cautious optimism for bringing about an end to the Israel-Hamas war that has lasted almost a year and a half, and for closure for families on both sides. “This deal is better late than never, despite the real risks it entails - and it does entail risks,” assessed Natan Sachs, Director of The Center for Middle East Policy.

This is the first pause in the fighting since the November 2023 arrangement, in which over 100 Israelis were returned in a hostage-prisoner swap. It includes three stages leading to a permanent truce, the return of all the hostages, Israeli withdrawal and the start of Gaza’s reconstruction.  

The Ceasefire: Broken Down 

The first phase negotiated the release of women, children and elderly hostages (albeit not all still living), as well as those in vulnerable health situations. They would be exchanged for Palestinian prisoners, with the numbers depending on their gender and age and whether they were a soldier or civilian. Increased truckloads of humanitarian aid would be sent to Gaza in conjunction with the gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces specifically from the Netzarim corridor, while maintaining a security buffer along the perimeter within Gaza. 

In phase two, the remaining hostages would be freed with a corresponding number of Palestinian prisoners, and there would be an Israeli withdrawal from the Rafah Crossing (seized in May 2024) to be managed with international oversight. This was a difficult concession as Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu perceived the juncture as essential for security. 

The third phase could last for years, and deals with the rebuilding of Gaza and the exchange of the bodies of the deceased hostages and Hamas members. 

While the first phase was formalized, only the framework for phases 2 and 3 have been completed. They are thus quite vague in regards to security, governance and reconstruction. 

Why Did This Deal ‘Stick’? 

Given the many overlapping features of the current deal with its predecessor proposed by the Biden administration in May 2024, why was it only accepted now? 

As in most cases, there is blame to be shared for the derailing. Israel accused Hamas of reneging on the agreements with continuous rocket attacks, causing the negotiations to collapse. In return, Hamas claimed the Netanyahu government made too many conditions. The hostages’ families have also accused Netanyahu for prioritizing his political future over the hostages' lives, conceding to pressure from the right wing contingency to continue the war.  

Why Was this Proposal Different from All Other Proposals?

The January 2025 deal is almost identical to the one tabled in May 2024 in its main components, aside from “nuanced refinements to logistics and humanitarian protocols.”

The January version referenced more specifications to the time frames and ratios of exchange, as well as stipulations vis-à-vis troop deployments and withdrawal. “By incorporating detailed timelines and conditions, the January agreement attempt[ed] to mitigate logistical ambiguities, paving the way for a more structured [and durable] implementation.” Mechanisms were designed to keep the deal on track whenever it derailed.

According to David Mencer, one of Netanyahu’s spokesmen, changes with Hamas’ status was critical for making the formalization in January possible. With its leadership - including the massacre’s mastermind, Yahya Sinwar - eliminated, and its weapons stockpile degraded, the terrorist group was more willing to concede to negotiations. 

‘The Trump Effect’?

A sentiment shared by many was, “For eight months, the framework…that could bring an end to the war between Israel and Hamas had been on the table, prompting fury about the delay among some, and now praise for President-elect Donald Trump for helping get it over the line.”

But was the implementation really due to the change in leadership, or were there other factors? 

After months of frustrating and often fruitless negotiations, many (including if not foremost, the US president himself), have credited the success to the ‘Trump Effect’. Indeed, he gained renown for his threat that ‘all hell would break out’ if not all the hostages were returned by the time he got into office. His reputation in the region, in addition to pressure tactics, were essential - though not the sole reason for -  re-energizing the talks. 

White House National Security Council spokesman for Biden John Kirby shared, “what really got us to this point was the isolating and weakening of Hamas” who previously “was not willing to negotiate in good faith.” According to Israeli mediator Gershon Baskin, who had helped negotiate the release of former Israeli hostage Gilad Shalit from Hamas, a critical reason the agreement was finally signed was due to Trump’s relationship with Netanyahu.

Not the Complete Story…

In a January media interview near the presidential inauguration, a reporter asked Biden who could take credit for the ceasefire deal. Incredulous, he asked, “Is that a joke?” for indeed, most of the legwork had been done by his team. In a rare display of collegiality, both administrations were critical in formalizing the final agreement, with collaborations between Biden’s Middle East representative Brett McGurk and Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff. 

A larger surrounding factor that led to the conclusion of the deal was the dramatically shifting landscape in the Middle East. Israel’s strategic military attacks on both Hamas and Hezbollah military reserves, the toppling of the Assad dictatorship in Syria, and the substantial weakening of Iran and the axis of resistance, were essential to this outcome. 

Problems With the Deal

While there is tentative hope, there is also a recognition of the concerning long-term implications involved. Many fear Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza might enable Hamas to regroup, with Israel insisting the leadership be prevented from governing Gaza. 

Another of the most contentious parts is the return of Israeli hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners which some media sources have erroneously called ‘a hostage exchange.’

Contrary to media portrayal of “Palestinians imprisoned in Israel,” most are held for criminal acts of murder and terrorism, with over 200 sentenced to life in prison. The mastermind of the October 7^th massacre had been one of the prisoners released in exchange for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in 2001, and many fear it being used as a tactic for blackmail (Hamas says it will not release all the hostages unless there is a complete Israeli withdrawal; essentially, what was in place October 6 as Israel had withdrawn in 2005).

There is also the problematic return ratio (‘Three Israeli Hostages Exchanged for 183 Palestinian Prisoners’), an unbearable sacrifice no other country could be compelled to accept, but one indicative of the value Israel places on returning all home.

Lastly are the numerous unresolved sticking points such as governance, security, and reconstruction, with problematically vague wording. 

In spite of all these concerns, “For all the question marks surrounding this deal, the opportunity it presents is too important to let go. The parties that threw their weight behind getting it done, now need to turn their attention to making it stick, for the sake of Israelis and Palestinians alike.”

The Day After

A condition Israel had was for Hamas to be prevented from ruling Gaza following the end of the war, a stipulation accepted by many in the international community. While some have proposed returning power to the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority (which Israel has repeatedly rejected), its track record and support of terrorism has caused suspicions of its neutrality.

While the ‘day-after’ details are part of phase 2, “what is needed is a workable post-war plan that puts Gaza under international administration for a transitional period. But how that is set up, and who participates in it, will make the difference between success and failure.”

As a result, the interim deal has in fact, been the simplest part. In order for a long term solution to the conflict, there needs to be a clear and detailed plan regarding the release of the remaining hostages and governance, for Gaza’s future and Israel’s security. 

The Two-State….What?

While the conflict has reinforced several countries' push for Palestinian independence in the long advocated ‘two-state solution’^[1], many in Israel are ever more vociferously against it. Beyond being seen as a twisted reward for the massacre, history has not shown a particularly strong or collaborative leadership and virtually no acknowledgement of coexistence. When Hamas went on the murdering rampage, it did not discriminate which Israelis had been active in bridging relations with Palestinians, bringing to mind hostages Oded Lifshitz (who drove Palestinians to hospitals in Israel) and Judi Weinstein (instrumental in peace initiatives). 

Additionally, much of the layout and information about the kibbutzes fed to Hamas were retrieved through Palestinian informants who had been workers for years, further eroding trust.

Prior to the conflict, Israel was close to normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia; a game changer. Though it has not been frozen out, one condition was steps towards a Palestinian state. As normalization with Saudi would be crucial for regional peace, a strong opponent to Iran and strengthening Israel's position in the Middle East, it is still under consideration. 

A Hollow Peace?

At the time of writing, the commitments seem to be going according to plan, though there have been numerous allegations of transgressions on both sides. 

As shared by The International Crisis Group, “A limited agreement is better than none at all. But for the deal to match the hopes it has raised, it needs to establish mechanisms for sustained humanitarian access, stable arrangements for security and public order, clear timelines for Israeli military withdrawal, and a path toward longer-term stability and governance in Gaza.”

Only time will tell. 

 

^[1]  Including the US, European and Arab countries