Why did Israel and Hamas finally agree to a ceasefire after months of fruitless negotiations? I don't think this is a hard question. It has to do with facts on the ground, not any weakness on Joe Biden's part.
On the Hamas side, the past few months have been disastrous. In addition to continued bombing and unrestrained slaughter from Israel, Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar has been killed; Hezbollah has been neutered; Syria suddenly collapsed; and Iran was forced to pull out its troops. Iran has also suffered from Israeli bombing, continued sanctions, and rolling blackouts across the country. It's now weaker than any time in recent memory.
In short, since Israel's October invasion of Lebanon Hamas has lost both its allies and its sponsors. Hamas wasn't moved by Trump's threat that "all hell" would break out if no ceasefire was reached, since they knew the threat was hollow. But they were moved by the catastrophic evolution of the war.
On the Israeli side, Benjamin Netanyahu was moved by Trump's pressure. He's well aware that Trump's support of Israel is strong but transactional, like most of Trump's dealings.¹ It could go away overnight if he feels he's getting nothing in return, and what Trump wanted was to get the war off his plate before he took office so he could concentrate on higher priorities (immigration, tariffs, energy) without worrying about war protesters provoking chaos and undermining his popularity the way they did Biden's.
Beyond this, the IDF is tired and stretched thin. Sixteen months of high-intensity war will do that to a small country, and they need a break to rest, regroup, and re-arm. A ceasefire is in their interest at the moment.
Nothing about the ceasefire deal has changed in the past half year, but six months ago neither side was willing to accept it no matter how much Joe Biden begged them. Today, Hamas is in ruins; Israel has gotten most of what it wants; and Netanyahu wants to appease Trump. That's why a ceasefire is possible now that hasn't been for the past year.
¹Netanyahu hasn't forgotten Trump's initial dithering after Hamas's October 7 attack:
Trump at a rally Wednesday night said Netanyahu “let us down” just before the U.S. killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in 2020.... In an interview that aired Thursday, he added to his criticism, saying Netanyahu “was not prepared” for the deadly weekend incursion from Gaza.
More recently Trump added that "Bibi Netanyahu rightfully has been criticized for what took place on Oct. 7. Also: “I had a bad experience with Bibi. And I was not happy about that. That was something I never forgot. And it showed me something.” And: there are “some very good people” who could take Netanyahu’s job. Trump also holds a grudge over Netanyahu congratulating Biden after the 2020 election while Trump was still fighting it.
By most reports Hamas is giving up nothing now they were not willing to give up more than six months ago. Why the fake equivalence? This reads like an argument that starts with its conclusion, Trump doesn't deserve credit, and its protected assumption, anything bad about Israel has to be matched by something about the Palestinians that makes it not Israel's fault. And then we get this weird handwaving argument where the timing is all a coincidence and the mass slaughter of Palestinians and Lebanese accomplished something, even if it is only that Hamas agreed to something they did not agree to before because it wasn't offered before.
The Palestinians started this by murdering, raping, and kidnapping innocent civilians. They are still holding several children under 5.
There should be no ceasefire until Hamas unconditionally surrenders. Same terms we offered the Nazis.
Once again, the Palestinians didn't start this. That's an argument that can be made only by someone who defines war as, "Israeli civilians suffer consequences," and simply doesn't care about Palestinians to the point of thinking that acts of war against them can exist simultaneously with peace.
"This" began in the late 19th century, when a bunch of European Jews enacted a program of large scale immigration to a territory that was already populated with the goal of creating a state that excluded more than 90% of that population from full citizenship. That you think that Palestinians were obligated to accept this betrays an appalling level of racism and belief that Arabs have no rights.
+50. The level of American ignorance regarding our biggest foreign aid money sink is appalling.
The Palestinians are obligated not to murder civilians, rape women, and kidnap infants in response to this.
When they do so it is incumbent on the civilized world to kill those responsible.
That's a good way of avoiding the implicit question. You made a claim about how "this" got started. When confronted by evidence that your claim is entirely bullshit, you switch to a different argument. It's not so much moving the goalposts as it is eliminating them entirely.
And, to anticipate your continuation of this non sequitur, Yes, Palestinians are obligated not to murder, rape, and kidnap. They often fail to uphold these obligations.
But you refuse to acknowledge that Israelis have the same obligations, and also often fail to uphold them. You have no principled opposition to terrorism, murder, rape, and kidnapping. You just object to Palestinians committing these offenses against Israelis. You're have no meaningful objection to Israeli perpetrators of these acts so long as they are targeting Palestinians.
You think the civilized world has the responsibility to kill Palestinians who commit these crimes, but you shriek in anger whenever someone suggests that anyone at all has a responsibility to kill Israelis who do so.
You're a racist, and you are evil.
Fortunately Israel is still holding 100 times as many Palestinians as political prisoners, so they will not run out of people to trade for the people the Palestinians are holding.
You do know that before Hamas killed around 1000 Israeli civilians, Israel was killing a few thousand Palestinians civilians every few years to keep them in line. Maintaining an apartheid state is not easy. And Israel has spent decades making sure that it can hold on to its apartheid state.
If this deal makes it to the 2nd phase it will be a miracle. A Palestinian terrorist already stabbed a man in Tel Aviv before the ink on the ceasefire was barely dry. Palestinians in Gaza still want to kill Jews -- they literally say it every day. Hamas is a group of murder, raping terrorists, they're not going to change. They'll be back in power and UNRWA will go back to teaching Palestinian children to hate Jews. The one positive is that 33 hostages, including Kfir and Ariel Bibas, will come home. Sadly some of them will come back home dead.
And Israeli settlers will continue to terrorize Palestinians in the West Bank. The Israeli authorities will continue to turn a blind eye to the killing, arson, and land theft. Israeli children will continue to go to schools in which an Arab student who expresses concern abou5t children in Gaza will get surrounded by classmates screaming that her village will be destroyed, which results in the Arab student getting suspended. Bedouin communities in the Negev will continue to have their land appropriated in order for the government to build towns for Jewish Israelis without receiving any compensation or alternatice places to live.
All terrible things that won't be solved as long as murdering, raping terrorists are next door eagerly waiting to do October 7th all over again. For a time, I thought Palestinians in Gaza would finally be done with Hamas, but it looks like they are ready to welcome them back. Hamas murders queer people, subjugates women, tortures and kills their own people, and lives in luxury while Gazans paid the price for the war they started. Israel can’t be the only one expected to change.
15 months watching helplessly while their family and friends are slaughtered by indiscriminate bombing and their homes are destroyed tends to motivate people to join an organisation dedicated to fighting back. Which is exactly what is happening:
Then Israel obviously has not hit Hamas hard enough.
The end of WWII was instructive. The German people wanted nothing to do with the Nazis ever again. Obviously, Israel needs to keep hitting Hamas until they are all dead or they unconditionally surrender. Same terms we gave the Nazis.
Meanwhile, why the heck is the US pushing for a ceasefire when Hamas also murdered and kidnapped Americans? What the heck is wrong with our government? When did we decide that we didn't want people who do that kind of thing to us dead?
Anyone who uses the analogy of the Palestinians to WWII Germans indicates only that they don't understand either situation.
Meanwhile, why the heck is the US pushing for a ceasefire when Hamas also murdered and kidnapped Americans?
Because our government understands at least a few bits of international law that we have made a part of our domestic law. Granted, they haven't exhibited an understanding of nearly enough of our legal obligations, but at least some. They can distinguish between civilians and combatants, which consistently eludes the Israelis.
When did we decide that we didn't want people who do that kind of thing to us dead?
At the same time that we understood that 90%+ of Gazans aren't Hamas. That you can't understand this distinction reflects poorly on you, and no one else.
And most Germans were not Nazis. Sometimes life sucks.
Nor are Palestinians Germans, making your strained attempted analogy ridiculous.
And much of what we did in WWII was made illegal in 1949.
I don't get what you have against Hamas when you clearly agree with their tactics and reasoning. I mean other than the fact that you think it is Palestinians that should be slaughtered and they think it is Israelis who should be slaughtered you and they seem to think the same.
Oh wait now I'm seeing what you object to. If it was Palestinians they wanted to slaughter I get the sense it would be fine.
Ah, yes. I occasionally forget that it is antisemitic to argue that Israelis have agency for their own actions. It is proper to blame the Palestinians for their own criminal actions, and the criminal actions of Israelis. Israelis are nothing but pure automatons, incapable of anything but blindly reacting to stimuli as their programming dictates.
We could justify everything the Israelis do by pointing out that it's just a reaction to what Palestinians have done. And then we could justify everything the Palestinians have done by pointing out it's just a reaction to what the Israelis have done. And we could keep going back like that, justifying everything everyone has done as a reaction to what the other side has done, until we reach the origin of this disaster, which is a bunch of late 19th century European Jews implementing a program of large scale immigration to a territory that was already populated, with the intention of creating a new state that excluded 90% of that population from full citizenship. Maybe that was a bad idea. How would you expect the Palestinians to react to that given that the Ottomans and then the British imposed that policy upon them?
But, really, the whole, "Let's excuse criminal actions because they were provoked," is a colossally evil and stupid response. We should hold everyone accountable for their own actions. Hamas slaughtering hundreds of civilians was criminal and evil, and they should be held accountable. And the Israeli actions are also criminal and evil, and they should be held accountable for them.
No.
The Israelis are not attacking Hamas for revenge. They are attacking Hamas to rescue the hostages that Hamas kidnapped and to destroy Hamas's ability to wage war against Israel. Both are legitimate military objectives.
In contrast, the Oct 7 Pogrom had no legitimate military objective. It was a war crime plain and simple.
The Israelis are not attacking Hamas for revenge.
That's funny. A lot of IDF field level commanders are telling their troops that revenge is the motivation:
'Now is the time for revenge, for victory. It's not the time to whine,' he emphasized scornfully, and the other officers nearby laughed. I was shocked, unable to reply."
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-01-15/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israeli-soldiers-claim-commanders-denied-them-mental-help-during-the-war/00000194-65d6-dabc-afff-6fd6509c0000
To his surprise, Hazani heard from senior officers he esteemed that "revenge is legitimate in this war."
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-01-03/ty-article/.premium/apocalypse-now-in-gaza-israel-seems-to-have-its-own-unhinged-officers/00000194-2d64-ddaf-adb7-6f6478b60000
It's how they eulogize each other:
One speaker described Ben-Natan's desire for revenge against Palestinian women and children and called for blood vengeance.
"You entered Gaza to take revenge, as much as possible – women, children," he said of Ben-Natan."
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-10-27/ty-article/.premium/you-entered-gaza-to-take-revenge-mourners-eulogize-idf-soldier-west-bank-settler/00000192-ce38-df2b-a5db-ce3cf8340000
It's how Netanyahu described the motivation early on:
"We will take mighty vengeance for this wicked day," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/sirens-warning-incoming-rockets-sound-around-gaza-near-tel-aviv-2023-10-07/
Revenge was called for in volumes of poetry distributed by the IDF to its troops to motivate them:
"And if there are thousands upon thousands of kinds of revenge I the world/Say, Man! How much will be paid for this and that?" he writes in one verse. Later he adds, "And if in the account of our people's sufferings another line was added/ you will collect on the day of vengeance and pay every tooth and every hair!"
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-03-26/ty-article-magazine/.premium/send-fire-on-gaza-israels-army-uses-revenge-poetry-to-encourage-its-soldiers/0000018e-7bad-d96c-af9f-7fed4ee60000
Both are legitimate military objectives.
You, like a lot of other people, seem to think that having a military objective obviates Israel from the requirements of the 4th Geneva Convention, which it ratified in 1951. This isn't true. There is no, "But our enemies are bad guys," exception to the Conventions.
In contrast, the Oct 7 Pogrom had no legitimate military objective. It was a war crime plain and simple.
This isn't true. While there certainly were many illegal and evil actions undertaken by Hamas and its allies on 10/7, they also put a good deal of effort into attacking Israeli military bases.
How strange that Israelis mass murder of Palestinians civilians has not made Gazans more favorable to them.
Meanwhile, Israelis are building military bases inside Gaza and roads accessible to Jews only which cut the strip apart, so "you can't get there from here" unless you are a non-Palestinian Israeli. Pretty much all the infrastructure of civilization has been destroyed, children are dying of starvation, the cold, and untreated medical needs. Disease is breaking out. So Israellis ought to feel pretty satisfied and happy with themselves.
Was there even anything left in Gaza for the Israeli's to bomb or shell?
I mean they've killed over 100 Palestinanis since the ceasefire was annouced. So I guess they found something to bomb/shell.
At this point the IDF is only bombing people.
Shrug. If some of those people are Hamas members then that is good.
But it is not just people. Hamas still has weapons, vehicles, and buildings they use for shelter. Plenty of targets remain.
If some of those people are Hamas members then that is good.
No. The deaths of civilians are not good, either legally or morally, full stop. They may be justified if there is also a military target, but they, themselves are not good. And, to be legal, the harm to civilians must be proportional to the military advantage gained. Israel has long passed that point.
Anything left to bomb or shell? You betcha! All those refugee camps, those tents cities, those impromptu medical areas, and food distribution sirtes. Anywhere Palestinians gather. Just as Israel has been doing all along.
"Cease fire" seems to never actually apply to Israel.
"Nothing about the ceasefire deal has changed in the past half year, but six months ago neither side was willing to accept it no matter how much Joe Biden begged them. ..."
The President of the United States doesn't have to beg Israel to do things, they can just tell them. Biden gave Israel a blank check but he didn't have to.
Hard to tell what would have happened if Biden cut off Netanyahu but one likely outcome would have been turning a close election into a bigger win for Trump.
Look what the media did to his withdrawal from Afghanistan. Cutting off aid to Israel would have been treated like treason.
Your comment did echo something I was going to offer as another reason Netanyahu agreed to the deal now: Biden foolishly trumpeted that there is "No daylight between America and Israel! None! None! None!" repeatedly. It's hard not to believe that his motivation was at least party about domestic politics in an election year.
That didn't quite work out, did it? But as Kevin notes, Trump was all over the place on Israel, leaving Netanyahu in some doubt of what that lunatic might do.
If Biden had allowed himself a little more wiggle room on his commitment, maybe Netanyahu would not have been so confident that he had nothing to worry about.
"Hard to tell what would have happened if Biden cut off Netanyahu .."
I expect the threat would have been sufficient.
Neither the threat nor actually doing it would have been sufficient. Netanyahu could have leaned back and waited, confident that Congress would force Biden to back down.
"Neither the threat nor actually doing it would have been sufficient. Netanyahu could have leaned back and waited, confident that Congress would force Biden to back down."
I doubt he would have been willing to take the gamble. Biden could for example announce that Israel would get no more help from the US but the US would take in Israeli refugees.
And it would be about three days before Congress overrode him. Netanyahu knows that. His goal isn't to "win" the war in Gaza. It's to prevent his coalition from splintering. Otzma Yehudit and Religious Zionism would have loved to watch him tell Biden to pound sand.
"And it would be about three days before Congress overrode him. ..."
It takes longer than that to pass bills and override vetoes even if there were two thirds majorities willing to give Israel a blank check over the vocal opposition of the US President. Which is doubtful. And not something I think Israel wants to test.
If you don't think that there would be a 2/3 majority in Congress to override a veto of a bill telling the administration to continue to send arms to Israel, you're deluded. The would have required that seventeen Democratic senators vote to overturn. Are you so out of touch that you can't name that many who would do so?
At least, there would be with a Democratic president. I notice that the very large number of Republicans, including members of Congress, who kept saying that a president that pushed Israel into a ceasefire should be impeached fell mysteriously silent when Trump started doing the pushing.
The deal was not completed last year because the mission was not yet accomplished.
Hamas POV
1. Israel moved toward "deal of the century" with Saudi Arabia
2. Hard-liners in Iran feel threatened
3. Iran-backed Hamas attacks Israel Oct 7, ending chance for deal
4. Hard-liners (Iran, Hamas): mission accomplished!
Israel POV
1. Attack / hostage crisis an "opportunity" for hard-liners to gain advantage
2. Netanyahu wages vicious war against Palestinians, demonstrating who's boss
3. Israel defies US, avoiding any ceasefire deal while Biden in office
4. Trump defeats Dem party in election
5. Hard-liners (Netanyahu): mission accomplished!
Peace is antithetical to hard-liners, whose interests lie in maintaining power through conflict with hard-liners on the other side. Biden (or any Dem) is a threat to the hard-liners. With Trump, the hard-liners are safe from any pressure to resolve the conflict.
Why there is ceasefire now and not six months ago is that Biden/Harris lost the election and the pesky nuisance of pressure to appease the less-belligerent powers in the US is no longer a factor.
The last time an Israeli Prime Minister (Rabin) signed a peace agreement with the Palestinians (Oslo Accord II, 28 Sept 1995) he was assassinated by a right-wing (Jewish) Israeli citizen (4 Nov 1995).
The message is quite clear: "Sign a peace agreement and the conservatives, backed 100% by the settler movement, will kill you."
Yep. Anwar Sadat didn't fare well either.
Yep, assassinated by in-house fundamentalist conservatives.
And let's not sanctify Rabin, either. In the Oslo Accords, he promised to end the expansion of the settlements*. Even before he was assassinated, settlement expansion was accelerating.
*If you're looking for this promise in the Accords, it's where it reads, "neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations." It's Israeli law that the settlements can only be built on designated "state land." So, the first step in expanding or creating a settlement is to change the land's status from whatever it was, including "private land" owned by Palestinians. This change of status is what the Accords were talking about.
Not to defend Rabin, but there's only 4-5 weeks between the signing of Oslo II and his assassination so no one should be surprised that little had changed on the ground in that time. At least he signed the damn thing - no one since Rabin would have done as much.
Everyone is going to claim victory. Fine. I won too! Thousands of religious fanatics across the region were killed, injured, terrorized, and left homeless. The area from Iran to Lebanon to Israel, Yemen and Sudan are all so fucked up by their religion.
This cease fire won’t last long. More death and destruction is coming. It’s all they know.
It pains me to say this...but Mr Trump may in fact have been the candidate of peace and stopping the dying of people by whatever means...while Democrats became the party of death and killing foreign people. This is the perception of most voting Americans and myself also.
This seems absurd, but there it is...and now we have to wait and see what Mr Trump can do with Ukraine.
As previously laid out, I am against this Ceasefire, (preferring an actual Peace), and I presuppose that I will be opposed to whatever terms Trump can impose on that war.
Which leads me to question, "Am I actually in favor of death and dying, more dead bodies, more killed children laying on cold slabs?"
Maybe unhappily so...Best New Year Wishes, Traveller
Biden picked sides in wars he did not start by arming one side. Neither the Russians or the various Muslim factions / governments are worth a moment of US support. The Israelis suck too. The only innocent party is Ukraine.
I’d prefer he stayed out of the Middle East but US presidents seem to have a hard on for it. I have no idea why.
Also there's Netanyahu's own political risk to add to this. According to what I've seen, he was on the verge of getting tossed out on his ass for a long, long time after October 7, and keeping the war going while resisting a hostage deal helped him withstand the pressure and stay in the PM's chair.
I don't know enough about Israeli politics to pinpoint when he felt it was finally safe enough for him to agree to a cease-fire and hostage swap without getting booted out immediately afterward, but I have to think that was a central factor for him in reaching this deal. He's always been one to weigh his own political position at least equal to just about any other consideration, as far as I can see.
That's true, Altoid. I also wonder why he feels safe now. Maybe this is just a ruse and Bibi will find a pretext to kill the deal later.
I agree; the difference is the change is Netanyahu’s prospects for remaining in power (and out of prison). That is due to the collapse of the Assad regime and the rout of Hezbollah, both weakening Iran’s ability to threaten Israel. In a very short time, Israel appears far more secure than before, with the IDF occupying Gaza, southern Lebanon, and parts of Syria adjoining the Golan. Bibi can argue that this is no time to change leadership.
According to what I've seen, he was on the verge of getting tossed out on his ass for a long, long time after October 7 . . .
This isn't true. It is the case that, had elections been held, he would have lost badly. But, so long as he kept the governing coalition together, he was in no danger of getting tossed out. Since his coalition consisted of Likud, two Religious Zionist parties (which are not the Ultraorthodox parties) who only care that they be allowed move towards complete annexation of Gaza and the West Bank, and two Haredi parties who will caucus with anyone who promises to keep the massive subsidies received by the Ultraorthodox and their exemption from conscription in place, that wasn't a real danger, so long as he kept promising them what they wanted. That's why he kept stalling on a hostage deal.
One of the Religious Zionist parties left the government earlier today because of the deal, but the government still has a slim Knesset majority, because a few months ago, Gideon Sa'ar's vanity party, whatever he's calling it now, joined the coalition, despite Sa'ar being on record, multiple times, as saying that he could never join a coalition led by a prime minister under indictment.
It's not hard to believe enthusiasm for the war is waning among IDF conscripts and reservists while Palestinians are increasingly filled with a lust for revenge. "How much longer are we going to do this?" must be a common sentiment in the IDF as they keep going up and down the rubble in the Gaza Strip, looking for "terrorists" while killing women and children.
Meanwhile Hamas has replaced most of its fallen soldiers with raw recruits, no doubt itching to get revenge for fallen loved ones and destroyed homes and livelihoods.
There are three major reasons:
1) Reservists have spent multiple tours at the front. Many are serving 150+ days on active duty. Meanwhile, their marriages and businesses are failing. Employers are starting to take action against them for the extent of their absences. And their kids aren't being properly cared for. IDF troops are experiencing massive psychological stress ad trauma, and their officers are preventing them from getting psychiatric help.
2) They really resent, for obvious reasons, that the Haredi are exempt from service while also demanding that the war continue. (Israeli Arabs are also exempt from conscription, but that's far down the list of reasons that Israeli Jews resent them.)
3) The government won't articulate a set of goals for which they are fighting. A part of the government doesn't have any goals beyond staying in power. Another part is happy to articulate their goal of ethnically cleansing Gaza and the West Bank and annexing them to Israel, which the rest of the government isn't willing to openly admit. Fighting and dying for no particular reason is deadly to military morale. It's worse if they are engaged in a massive exercise in whack-a-mole, fighting over the same pieces of ground over and over. Go take a look at what happened to the US Army in Korea and Vietnam.
Gotta rest, regroup, and rearm for the next genocide.
kenalovell...you are against the Ceasefire also! That's great, someone else wants the killing to continue. There are lots of young Palestinians willing and praying to be the next up to die, their flesh shredded from their bodies...(BTW open human wounds look exactly like very fresh hamburger!).
It is interesting to see people hope and supporting the Palestinians in their quest for dying. Traveller
I'm not against the cease fire. However, it's stupid to think that it actually means the end of the war. If Netanyahu doesn't restart the fighting after the first phase is completed, effectively walking away from the deal, he's going to lose his majority and be forced into elections. That's what he's been trying to avoid. He wants to put them off as long as possible (they must be held sometime prior to 26 October, 2026) in the hopes of a turnaround.
Hamas also has reasons not to go through with the whole deal, but a large one is that Netanyahu is transparently negotiating in bad faith.
And, given that the Palestinians see themselves dying and terrorized even without fighting back, what, exactly, is their incentive not to fiht back?
I don't know how you could read that into my comment. I predicted the Israeli invasion would be a humanitarian catastrophe, which it has been, and I've been in favor of a ceasefire ever since the invasion occurred. What an anonymous commenter on a blog thinks is, of course, of no practical importance whatsoever to the people fighting the conflict.
You make me sound like a MAGA idiot but I think you are ignoring the obvious fact that Trump takes power tomorrow.
The deal has been available for months.
The facts on the ground haven't changed much since the fall of Syria.
The reason this is happening now is both sides are scared of the new madman in the White House.
That is far more likely than the two sides just, BY CHANCE, happened to choose now as the time to implement a cease fire.
Maybe, Iran would have accepted the deal around January 20, 1981 if Carter or Anderson had won the election. Maybe it is all a coincidence that these things happened around the time of a new President.
I am not that naive. I had thought that you weren't either.