Should both parties sign on the dotted line and ratify the agreement, questions about the future of the region still loom large, Northeastern University experts say.
The announcement of a 42-day ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas on Wednesday sparked hopes on both sides that an end to the fighting could be near. But news overnight that an Israeli cabinet vote on the deal had been stalled due to disagreements put the truce resolution back on hold — at least for now.
As the deal is purportedly a product of a negotiation involving both the Biden administration and a special envoy of President-elect Donald Trump, many observers were quick to note the effect of having the incoming Republican administration at the table.
“If this deal is accomplished, it will be because Trump, and his envoy, was able to use the leverage that he has, and the United States has, to twist arms, cajole and force concessions from all parties to end the conflict,” says Simon Rabinovitch, Stotsky Associate Professor in Jewish Historical and Cultural Studies at Northeastern. “And in comparison, Biden and his team were either unwilling or unable to use that leverage that was available to them.”
“I think that the closeness with which this maps on to earlier discussions does really suggest that the Biden administration did not push as hard as they could have to implement a ceasefire earlier,” says Zinaida Miller, Northeastern professor of law and international affairs. “It’s a little hard to avoid that conclusion.”
“There’s certainly more that could have been done to push the Israeli government toward a ceasefire,” Miller says.
The three-phase plan would give both sides an opportunity to release hostages and prisoners of war, with about 33 Israeli hostages expected to be released over the 42-day period. The pause, which is similar in nature to the one proposed by President Joe Biden in May, also commits Israel to reducing its presence in Gaza.
Though the timeline is unclear, partial Israeli withdrawal is expected during the first phase.
The ceasefire deal “is good news,” Miller says. But there are “immense questions now about governance in Gaza, reconstruction, aid and recovery, how and where people are able to move internally, and the shape of the future.” At the same time, she notes that any deal that means a return to the status quo of Israeli occupation is unacceptable.
“Even if this deal goes forward, there are major questions about what it will mean for northern Gaza in particular, but really all of Gaza, which has been effectively reduced to rubble,” Miller says. “Even if people can go back, they don’t have homes to go back to. And they don’t have resources to rebuild — not to mention food, water or other basics of life.”
Miller says that efforts to rebuild face “issues of access — whether Israel will allow the materials in necessary for reconstruction and for aid delivery” as well as security questions because of the “complete breakdown of law and order” in Gaza as a result of the ongoing war, the security of humanitarian aid efforts remains a big concern moving forward.
“They could reactivate the civilian police force in Gaza to secure the aid, which would probably be the best option, but would Israel consider that a violation of the ceasefire?” she says. “If that’s not an option, aid convoys will be more vulnerable to attack. Certainly the U.N. will be deeply involved in coordinating, but the truth of the matter is that Israel remains in control of the key decisions affecting Palestinian life.”
On Thursday, the Biden administration continued to work with mediators to iron out the final details. Reports show that Qatar and Egypt also took part in the truce negotiations.
Rabinovitch says the Biden administration deserves some credit for the deal — not only because its framework seems exactly like what Biden proposed in May, but because the president was “willing to step aside” and let Trump’s emissaries participate in the negotiations.
But Rabinovitch adds that little is known about the kind of pressure Trump was able to exert on Netanyahu’s government and the process outside of his public statements. Trump had demanded in the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election that if Hamas didn’t release its remaining hostages before his inauguration, “all hell will break out.”
“That being said, I think the single biggest leverage that the Trump administration has is their four years,” he says. “It’s the fact that there are a lot of really important decisions to be made over the next four years, so the incoming government has a lot of leverage based on the relationship alone.”
“I would add that a [Kamala] Harris administration would also have that leverage as well,” he says. “Theoretically any administration would have that leverage because the Israeli government would have to make their calculations based on the realities that that administration would bring with respect to arms and diplomacy.”