��������

The most common reaction to the ceasefire in Gaza, among both Palestinians and Israelis, has been one of relief rather than joy. This is understandable considering the suffering and trauma that this longest and deadliest round of hostilities between the two has caused. When all is said and done, no one has come out of this war better off, and the result is yet another generation lost to bloodshed, fear, and hatred, along with profound doubts that a better future is around the corner.
Love him or loathe him, it is impossible to imagine this peace deal seeing the light of day without the involvement of US President Donald Trump, as was the case with the ceasefire agreed in January, just before his inauguration. Tragically, he let that agreement be violated by Israel two months later. Yet, what should bother us most about this war, considering the heavy human cost, is that it was allowed to continue for so long, while the international community was reluctant to impose a similar deal that was on the table, with minor variations, even before Trump was returned to the White House. After all, from a strategic military and political perspective, this war had run its course many months ago, and in the case of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it was obvious that continuing the conflict was entirely a matter of his political survival and attempts to derail his corruption trial. But beyond this war, it is worth reflecting on whether there are also more universal lessons for ending such flare-ups before they are allowed to turn into a catastrophe, such as the one that befell Gaza.
One does not necessarily have to subscribe to Trump’s approach or style, and I do not, but we must recognize his ability to translate, almost instinctively, the influence he can exert as leader of the most powerful country in the world, at least in this case, into achieving the desired result. A pessimist with regard to human nature would argue that belligerents will not consider laying down their arms until they suffer from war fatigue, or it is imposed on them by more powerful forces, and not because they recognize that it is senseless. In this case, the role of those not directly involved in the hostilities is paramount to bringing the fighting to an end.
It is still unclear what Hamas’ main objective was on Oct. 7, 2023, and whether what took place was a scenario that it had planned for — and if this was the case, whether it completely miscalculated the Israeli response. Certainly, Israel was not at all prepared for such an attack and entered the war in the worst possible way: hurt, traumatized, humiliated, and with no ability to differentiate between restoring deterrence and exacting revenge. Much of Israel’s military and political leadership wanted, consciously or not, to redeem themselves from their failure to prevent the most horrific single day in the country’s history. This, then, was from the outset, and especially due to the imbalance in military power between the two belligerents, a very dangerous combination of factors. With the government and its security forces setting themselves the impossible task of completely eliminating Hamas, and then adding to this the spurious claim that only military pressure would bring about the release of the hostages, the path to hell was paved. 

No one has come out of this war better off.

Yossi Mekelberg

Even if it was difficult to envisage the magnitude of Israel’s brutal response, from past experience, and from the immediate reaction to Oct. 7, including the claim that there were no innocents in Gaza, world leaders could have made an educated guess that the lives of many innocent people were going to be sacrificed. More than anyone else, it was former US President Joe Biden who, appeared to have learned the mistakes made by the US after 9/11, warned Israel “not to be consumed by rage,” and declared that as a democracy “you don’t live by the rules of terrorists. You live by the rule of law.” But Israel failed to heed both warnings. Biden was right to issue them, but was he naive to believe that a Netanyahu government that relied on messianic elements would take any notice? If Biden thought it was his duty to issue this advice, he therefore also had the responsibility and the ability to stop the war at any point. However, he was either reluctant or afraid to do so in an election year. Similarly, what Trump has pulled off in recent weeks, he could have done months ago and by that spared the lives of thousands.
It was also the case of Europe, including the UK, conveniently casting itself as playing second fiddle to Washington despite having more than sufficient leverage to influence both sides. Similarly, regional powers could have leveraged their influence at many junctures of this war to stop the conflict, and make it clear to both sides that there would be consequences for either or both if the war continued. Delaying the inevitable in these situations does not make it any easier to bring them to an end, and here it resulted in immeasurable suffering during the period of procrastination.
Eventually the Trump administration managed to cobble together an unlikely coalition that neither Israel nor Hamas could afford to defy. This does not mean that they will not try to disrupt the ceasefire agreement, but in that case it should be for this coalition to react, and react quickly and decisively. Another lesson from these ceasefire negotiations is the crucial role of civil society. The many thousands of people who gathered in Israel every week to demand that their government prioritize the release of hostages, and the hostages’ families constant lobbying of world leaders, had a great impact, if not on the Israeli government, then on the US negotiators, including the president. Opposition to Hamas, including armed opposition, also emerged from within Gaza, and the level of support for Hamas among the population fell considerably and left it more accommodating.
Without the external and domestic pressures, the war in Gaza could have continued for many more months, especially considering the profound asymmetry in military power, and with both leaderships caring more about their political survival than the fate of  their people. The resulting ceasefire remains extremely fragile and is already facing a major challenge at the first hurdle of releasing all the remaining bodies of the Israeli hostages. This should send an instant and clear message to all those who are guarantors of this deal that this is only the beginning, and that this agreement needs their undivided attention in order that the following stages of the ceasefire might see the light of day.

• Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House.
X: @YMekelberg