Gaza War | The expert lists three reasons why Israel could bend to Biden’s cease-fire agreement

Middle East research professor Hannu Juusola The University of Helsinki believes that some kind of ceasefire in Gaza is possible, even if Israel has not achieved its war goals.

“If the goals are set what the prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said about destroying Hamas,” says Juusola.

The conditions for a Gaza peace deal are again up in the air, as the US president Joe Biden presented the Finnish time on Friday evening the three-phase war in Gaza the so-called peace planwhich he called Israel’s performance.

Over the weekend it started to look like thatthat Biden would have gotten behind the plan of both Israel and the extremist organization Hamas.

However, both parties have their own conditions for approving the plan. Hamas wants confirmation of Israel’s commitment to the agreement, while Israel’s Netanyahu stated on Saturday that Israel is not compromising on its goal of eliminating Hamas once and for all.

“Israel’s conditions for ending the war have not changed: the military and administrative resources of Hamas must be destroyed, the hostages must be released, and it must also be ensured that Gaza no longer threatens Israel,” the Prime Minister’s Office announced in a statement published on Saturday by the newspaper of The New York Times by.

Helsinki the university’s Juusola points out that even at best, Israel’s goals in the war have remained empty. Hamas is weaker, but the extremist organization has not been completely destroyed.

The goals were initially very difficult to achieve, says Juusola. According to him, destroying Hamas as a political actor is almost impossible, and as a military actor it is also very difficult.

Why then would Israel bend to the peace plan if the goals have not been achieved?

According to Juusola, there are at least three main reasons for this.

First of all, the issue of hostages is a big domestic political issue in Israel. The first part of the peace plan would include a six-week ceasefire during which Hamas would release the women and children it held hostage. In return, Israel would have to withdraw its forces from the populated areas of the Gaza Strip and allow the delivery of humanitarian aid.

Another part of the plan would make the ceasefire permanent, requiring Hamas to release all remaining hostages alive in exchange for Palestinians captured by Israel.

In the third phase, reconstruction should be started in Gaza with international support.

Second Juusola considers the source of the plan to be the reason for Israel’s compliance with the ceasefire. The plan was presented by US President Biden, although he called it an Israeli proposal.

“When the president of the United States puts himself in such a personal position, it’s not worth opposing,” explains Juusola.

Thirdly, the fact that a large part of Israel’s own security machinery does not consider the goals set for the war to be realistic, but is more of the opinion that it would be worthwhile to wrap up what has been achieved and move forward, says Juusola.

“Criticism coming from within the army has more of an idea of ​​what is achievable. More than with the political leadership.”

Israel and Hamas last tried to agree on a ceasefire in early May. The negotiations started promisingly, but faded quickly.

According to Juusola, this time the peace plan is different in the sense that the first phase can be continued if there is no agreement on the second phase. However, the plan suffers from a lack of details, which makes it difficult to evaluate its implementation.

“The agreement is vague and, for example, it does not say anything about Hamas or how Gaza is governed. It is a very general plan, and therefore it is difficult to say where it will eventually lead.”