As he stepped down from his role, Joe Biden’s last act as a president was to broker the temporary ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, hoping to bring an end to the months-long violence in Gaza Strip. ‘Good riddance to the sounds of warfare in Gaza,’ Biden offhandedly told the press before darting off to a church visit in South Carolina. Merely six weeks later, however, the ceasefire came under challenge – set to crumble on Saturday itself, its durability called into question.
While clashes between Israel and Hamas have surged once more and each side points fingers at the other for this breakdown, the first phase of the agreement seems to be stuck in a muddy puddle. And as for the negotiations on the second phase, they are yet to get off the ground, proving that the ceasefire, although reached in the twilight hours of Biden’s leadership, lacked sufficient strength and credibility to put an end to the Gaza War.
The conflict, initiated on October 7, 2023, was marked by Hamas militants tearfully wreaking havoc on Israel’s border towns, leading to the death of approximately 1,200 innocents and a kidnapping spree of over 250 people. In response, Israel’s robust military operation led to the death of an estimated 48,000 Palestinians as per the Palestinian health ministry housed in Gaza.
The only good to have possibly emerged from the Biden administration was the United States’ involvement in brokering a somewhat intricate three-phase ceasefire and hostage negotiation with the aid of mediators from Qatar and Egypt. The initial phase, enforced on January 19, called for a break in the fighting for six weeks, underpinned by the release of 33 hostages from Israel kept in Gaza in exchange for nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners held hostage by Israel.
The second phase ideally should see a permanent termination of the hostilities, a full retraction of Israeli forces from Gaza, and the release of the remaining 60 hostages held captive by Hamas. The cherry on the cake, the third phase, comprises the reconstruction of Gaza, currently in a state of utter ravage and destruction.
Upon the agreement coming into force, only 25 live hostages have been released by Hamas, in addition to the bodies of four deceased captives, including the young Bibas boys, Ariel and Kfir, and their mother, Shiri. Speculations are rife about whether the bodies of the remaining four will be returned this Thursday, a decision that remains at Hamas’ discretion. Of the others who remain captive, at least half are presumed dead.
While Israel released several hundred Palestinian captives, it declared an indefinite postponement of the release of 620 other detainees until Hamas fulfilled its obligations. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made it clear that Israel would not permit the 620 Palestinian prisoners to walk free until the safe return of the remaining detainees was ensured. A farcical release event staged by Hamas only heightened Netanyahu’s indignation.
This release ceremony, which included armed militants leading Israeli hostages onto a stage for presentation to the crowd gathered in Gaza before being handed over to the Red Cross, invited a lot of criticism. It crossed a line when an Israeli hostage was directed by Hamas to embrace his captor in a show of false affection. At another instance, coffins bearing the bodies of Israeli children were brazenly displayed under a banner depicting Netanyahu as a blood-sucking vampire. Such mockery of human loss and dignity, although dismissed by Hamas as respectful observance, drew widespread condemnation.
These staged events, besides being highly distasteful, explicitly violated international laws by being disrespectful. However, in a twisted claim, Hamas stated that the ceremonies maintained decorum and that Israel was using them as an excuse to duck its responsibilities as agreed upon in the ceasefire. These events have sparked off new points of contention, threatening the probability of a ceasefire extension and eventual second-phase agreement.
Tensions shot up on Sunday as Israel dispatched its tanks into the West Bank for the first time in two decades and announced an ‘extended stay’ in preparation to combat the Palestinian militant factions based in refugee camps. Netanyahu directed the military to escalate their operations in view of the series of blasts in bus depots near Tel Aviv last week. Thankfully, no casualties were reported, but these explosions stirred up uncomfortable memories of suicide bombings from a couple of decades ago.
Predictably, Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, found fault with Israel’s decision to deploy tanks in the northern West Bank. However, President Donald Trump, who succeeded Biden in January, sided with Israel’s standpoint and supported the decision to delay the release of Palestinian prisoners, rightly condemning the ‘barbaric treatment’ of Israeli hostages by Hamas.
Trump’s stance on the issue has been firm from the beginning. Earlier this month, when Hamas announced it would cease releasing hostages after blaming Israel for ceasefire violations, Trump issued an ultimatum stating that Israel should retract the ceasefire unless all hostages were let go. A fitting warning of ‘all hell is going to break out’ if all the hostages were not released showed Trump’s excellent judgment in the matter – a refreshing contrast to Biden’s ineffectiveness.
Even as Israel mulls over extending the ceasefire in Gaza to secure the remaining 63 hostages, discussions of Gaza’s future have been sidelined. ‘We’re being very careful,’ announced Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel, while contemplating the possibility of extending the existing truce in exchange for their hostages, ‘They have to be returned safely.’
However, should an agreement fail to take shape by Friday, there’s a valid concern that fights would resume, or the existing scenario would freeze. In this case, the truce would be maintained, hostages would remain in custody, and Israel may clamp down on aid entry into Gaza. It’s telling that two officials involved with the ceasefire admitted that Israel and Hamas had not initiated negotiations to solidify the second phase. It raises questions over the potential for a mutual agreement, considering the gaping differences between the two sides.