When Israel and Hamas reached a ceasefire agreement in the middle of last month, discussions arose regarding who deserved credit: Joe Biden or Donald Trump.
Mr. Biden promptly pointed out that the deal adhered to the “exact framework” established by his administration the previous May.
He was correct.
The only modification negotiated in early January was “Appendix I,” which consisted of approximately 600 words outlining the “practical procedures and mechanisms to implement the agreement.”
His assertive Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, reportedly emphasized this point to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a particularly intense meeting in Jerusalem.
Consequently, the deal came together just days prior to the inauguration in the US.
This agreement is often referred to as a “fragile” ceasefire for a reason.
For nearly two decades, the two parties have been caught in a cycle of violence and distrust, with each side viewing the other’s existence as an existential threat.
Donald Trump’s recent comments about ‘clearing out’ Gaza have not instilled confidence.
That tension has remained since the ceasefire took effect on January 19, becoming evident during Hamas’s display of power on Thursday during the hostage exchange and the subsequent delay in Israel’s release of Palestinian prisoners.
While the focus is naturally on ground events, the key to the survival of this deal likely still lies with the US.
If the ceasefire persists, it will be due to Donald Trump’s insistence.
This sentiment is echoed by the mother of 23-year-old Guy Gilboa Dala, one of the 79 remaining hostages held by Hamas in Gaza.
In an emotional radio interview yesterday, Ms. Gilboa-Dalal repeatedly mentioned Mr. Trump’s name, expressing that he is the one person she trusts to bring her son home.
In other words, she does not trust Mr. Netanyahu, whose far-right allies have threatened to destabilize his government if the ceasefire extends beyond this initial six-week phase.
Furthermore, Mr. Trump’s recent rhetoric has failed to inspire confidence, notably his suggestion that Gaza be “cleared out” and its population relocated to Jordan and Egypt.
However, his envoy’s recent tour through the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, indicates that Mr. Trump remains committed to the three-phase ceasefire plan.
Benjamin Netanyahu will arrive in Washington with a transparent desire to resume the war in Gaza.
Importantly, increased military action in Gaza would impede the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, a primary focus during the Trump administration.
Mr. Netanyahu’s upcoming visit to Washington will clarify the US president’s true position.
Tomorrow’s meeting between the Republican president and the Israeli leader will mark the first instance of the new president hosting a foreign leader since taking office—a detail Mr. Netanyahu has described as “testimony to the strength of our personal friendship.”
Yet, the Israeli prime minister is expected to arrive at the White House with a thinly veiled intention to resume the conflict in Gaza following the conclusion of the ceasefire’s first phase.
Certain Israeli media reports have suggested that he has instructed the IDF to prepare operational plans for such an escalation.
Meanwhile, Mr. Netanyahu has not dispatched negotiators to Doha for crucial discussions on the second phase of the ceasefire.
While his office claims that talks will commence during discussions with Mr. Witkoff, the failure to send negotiators to the Qatari capital breaches the agreement, which stipulated that negotiations should begin today—the 16th day of the first phase.
The Qatari prime minister urged both parties yesterday to “engage immediately” in negotiations, cautioning that no clear timeline for discussions had been established.
This is particularly concerning given how little agreement has been reached regarding the next phase.
In the second phase of the ceasefire, Israeli forces are expected to fully withdraw from Gaza.
This lack of clarity is partly intentional, as mediators anticipated that a six-week pause would naturally lead to a more extended ceasefire, but it also reflects the significant divide between the two sides, which have struggled to find consensus on critical elements of the second stage.
The agreement meticulously details the first phase but dedicates only a few lines to phase two.
However, those lines contain crucial information.
They advocate for a “sustainable calm” through the “permanent cessation of military operations” and the “complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip.” All remaining Israeli hostages would be released in exchange for Palestinian prisoners.
Such terms would effectively conclude the war in Gaza, creating a decisive turning point.
Nevertheless, the agreement lacks a detailed plan to achieve these expansive commitments.
Given their scope and the considerable gap between the two parties, progress appears almost unattainable without the sort of pressure that initially secured this ceasefire.
This is why tomorrow’s meeting between Mr. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu holds such significance.
In that Oval Office encounter, the future of Gaza’s ceasefire hangs in the balance.
While the Israeli prime minister may hope to find a receptive audience for resuming the conflict, he may instead discover that his former ally has become the most formidable obstacle to those ambitions.
