As the United States and other international actors work to transform this fragile ceasefire into a framework for governance and reconstruction, several issues remain. Unless those obstacles are overcome, it remains unclear whether this agreement can go beyond being a pause in a cycle of confrontation.
The basic question is how to prevent violations that threaten the ceasefire, which, if serious enough, could lead to a resumption of hostilities. There is a verification mechanism, based in Cairo, that includes representatives from Israel, Hamas, and the mediators–The US, Egypt, and Qatar. This mechanism has been tested in one crisis so far, and it seems to be working. Nevertheless, future challenges can be expected, particularly as the relationship between the two sides becomes even more strained.
Moreover, the agreement leaves open the possibility of Israeli air strikes. The text does not explicitly rule out such attacks, and the air strikes that have taken place since the ceasefire was announced raise serious questions about the ability of the agreement to protect its terms.
Ceasefire agreements typically address a variety of issues, including: the timing of cessation; definition and identification of prohibited acts; separation of forces (including delineation of ceasefire lines); verification and monitoring; arrangements for disengagement; repatriation and relocation of prisoners of war; restitution and compensation of claims; and ad hoc provisions. The agreements also tend to inform the jus in bello situation that emerges upon termination of the conflict.
In many contexts, however, a ceasefire agreement cannot specify terms that would authorize the use of external force to enforce the agreement, or that might provide a legal basis for future armed conflict. In addition, there may be limited room for negotiating a comprehensive settlement to resolve the underlying controversies of the conflict in the short term, given the complex relationships and entrenched positions between the parties.