Nour Odeh: The Gaza agreement clearly borrows from the “phased approach” that characterized the Oslo Accords, as they depend on stages and the continuation of negotiations.

Dr. Hussein Al-Deek: The Gaza agreement represented a shift in the Israeli government’s positions after a decisive intervention by Trump, which prompted Netanyahu to make concessions

Dr. Abdul Majeed Suwailem: The Palestinian people, despite the horrors of war and destruction they have been subjected to, have not shown any willingness to surrender or accept defeat.

Noman Abed: The agreement is an important achievement to stop the massacre, but it did not achieve a complete victory or a comprehensive political settlement that would restore the existence of the Palestinian cause

Dr. Aql Salah: The agreement places the international community before its responsibilities towards the failure of previous peace agreements to grant the Palestinian people their rights

Suleiman Basharat: The agreement is a positive shift in terms of stopping the humanitarian tragedy and genocide, and Israel has not been able to achieve its strategic goals

Amid the escalation of the crisis in the Gaza Strip, which has lasted for more than 15 months and left behind massive destruction and thousands of victims, a ceasefire agreement was reached on Wednesday evening under Egyptian-Qatari-American sponsorship. However, the agreement may be hindered by the possibility of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu violating it and continuing the killing once again.

Despite the apparent importance of the agreement in ending the ongoing Israeli aggression on Gaza, writers, political analysts and specialists believe in separate interviews with “I” that it does not constitute a comprehensive political settlement of the Palestinian issue, as the provisions focus mainly on the repercussions of the war and the return of the situation to what it was before the aggression, while the agreement reflects a state of strategic retreat for Israel after its failure to achieve its military and political goals from the war.

On the other hand, some writers see the agreement as a temporary achievement for the Palestinian resistance, which was able to impose new conditions in the conflict, while maintaining its cohesion and steadfastness despite the brutality of the aggression, while some do not see the agreement as a “victory” for the Palestinian people, but rather as a cessation of genocide and killing only.

The current agreement represents a "framework agreement."

Nour Odeh, a writer and political analyst specializing in diplomatic affairs and international relations, stresses that the main importance of the current ceasefire agreement lies in the fact that it puts an end to the ongoing killing in the Gaza Strip, giving the people of the Strip an opportunity to heal their wounds and absorb the human and material losses they have suffered over the past fifteen months.

Awda points out that what happened represents a humanitarian catastrophe that will take months and perhaps years to absorb and understand its dimensions for the Palestinian people and the national cause as a whole.

Awda explains that any step that stops the aggression should be welcomed, noting that the current agreement represents a “framework agreement,” where the first phase focuses on stopping the aggression and dealing with its repercussions. However, she stresses that the clear details so far are limited to this phase, while the second and third phases are still subject to negotiations that require international political intervention to ensure implementation.

Awda asserts that the absence of international intervention threatens to resume the aggression on the Gaza Strip if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's calculations shift towards completing the "massacre," noting that these risks are not far from reality.

Awda points out that Netanyahu's political calculations and the expected decisions of US President-elect Donald Trump may be major factors in determining the fate of the agreement and its continuation.

Awda asserts that American political priorities and how Trump behaves may play a pivotal role in convincing Netanyahu not to return to aggression.

Awda warns that there is a strategic danger threatening the Palestinian existence, especially in the West Bank, where the Israeli right, led by Netanyahu, seeks to achieve strategic goals related to annexing the West Bank, and killing any chance of establishing an independent Palestinian state that includes Jerusalem, the rest of the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

Awda stresses the importance of internal Palestinian dialogue to confront the challenges imposed by this agreement, especially with regard to the second and third stages, as these stages will include major issues related to the management of the Gaza Strip after the war.

Awda stressed that the responsibility lies with the Palestinian parties to ensure political unity between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, calling for the establishment of a common Palestinian vision that moves away from narrow factional calculations and champions the Palestinian dream of freedom and independence.

Awda believes that the Gaza agreement contains a clear borrowing from the “phased pattern” that characterized the Oslo agreement, as both agreements share the reliance on stages and the continuation of negotiations, noting that this borrowing raises concern and pessimism among many.

Awda explains that the fundamental difference lies in the fact that the Oslo Accords dealt with one political entity for the Palestinians, while this agreement deals with Gaza alone without addressing major political issues such as the future of Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, independence, and return.

Awda asserts that the Palestine Liberation Organization, which led the Oslo negotiations, had the popular and political mandate as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinians despite the disagreements that the agreement raised. However, in the current case, the ceasefire agreement was negotiated with a specific Palestinian faction, which highlights the absence of political and popular consensus and reinforces fears of its impact on the future of Palestinian unity.

Awda warns of the strategic risks that may result from the absence of a unified Palestinian vision, stressing that the agreement requires comprehensive Palestinian cooperation to ensure the continuation of unity between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Awda stresses the importance of internal Palestinian dialogue to establish participatory governance and a common national vision capable of confronting political and regional challenges and standing up to Israeli plans aimed at liquidating Palestinian national rights.

Awda confirms that the Palestinian future faces a strategic danger that requires awareness and a reformulation of the political reality, and that without that talk of reconstruction, liberation and independence becomes futile.

A message from Trump to Netanyahu forced him to change his positions

The writer, political analyst and specialist in American affairs, Dr. Hussein Al-Deek, describes the truce agreement in the Gaza Strip as historic, and came under Egyptian-Qatari-American sponsorship, to end the pain after a devastating war that lasted for more than 15 months on the Strip. The agreement, which represented a shift in the positions of the Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu, came after decisive intervention by US President-elect Donald Trump.

According to Dr. Hussein Al-Deek, Trump sent his special envoy to Tel Aviv to deliver a clear message to Netanyahu: “The president wants to sign the agreement within days.” This message prompted Netanyahu to change his position, not only by agreeing to the agreement, but also by making tangible concessions. These concessions achieved substantial gains for Hamas, especially on issues that Israel had previously rejected, such as a complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and a final ceasefire after the three implementation stages of the agreement.

Al-Deek explains that the agreement is an important development as it ends one of the longest wars that destroyed Gaza extensively and resulted in tens of thousands of martyrs and wounded.

Al-Deek touches on the most important provisions of the agreement, which include: a final ceasefire after a third phase that will be implemented gradually, Israel’s complete withdrawal from Gaza, a demand that the Israeli governments categorically rejected, and reconstruction and compensation. The agreement stipulated the start of the reconstruction process, but it did not specify the implementation mechanisms or the party responsible for managing the process in Gaza, which leaves this provision in a state of ambiguity.

Another issue in the agreement, which Al-Deek describes as pivotal, is the release of Palestinian prisoners. The first phase includes the release of 250 prisoners with long sentences and life sentences, which represents an unprecedented achievement, especially if the second phase is implemented, which could lead to Israeli prisons being completely empty of prisoners with life sentences.

Despite the apparent gains, Al-Deek stresses that this agreement cannot be considered a peace agreement between a liberation movement and an occupying state. It does not address the fundamental political issues related to the Palestinian cause, such as: the future of borders and sovereignty, the fate of refugees, the administration of the Gaza Strip and international crossings.

Al-Deek points out that the agreement only deals with the direct repercussions of the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip, and stipulates restoring the situation to what it was before October 7, 2023.

In this context, Al-Deek stresses that the agreement in Gaza does not carry any future political dimension, and does not guarantee a permanent solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Al-Deek believes that the comparison between this agreement and the Oslo Agreement is illogical. While Oslo came in the context of political negotiations between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel, this agreement aimed to end military operations and stop the destruction in Gaza. Oslo also included political promises such as the establishment of a Palestinian state, while this dimension is completely absent in the current agreement.

Al-Deek points out that the agreement came under pressing international and regional circumstances, as the new US administration played a major role in pushing the parties to the agreement, while Egypt and Qatar provided diplomatic cover for its implementation. However, the agreement remains subject to several challenges, the most important of which is the mechanism for implementing the provisions related to reconstruction and ensuring the cessation of future aggression.

Al-Deek asserts that this agreement represents a temporary achievement for Hamas and the Palestinian people, but it leaves many fundamental questions unanswered. It is an agreement to end a severe crisis and not to settle the long conflict, which means that the Palestinian issue will remain in a state of political instability in the absence of comprehensive and just solutions.

The will of the Palestinians will establish a new phase in the conflict

Writer and political analyst Dr. Abdul Majeed Suwailem believes that the ceasefire agreement in Gaza constitutes a great event, based on several basic angles, the most important of which is stopping the killing and destruction machine, even if it is temporary and for only 42 days. Despite the possibility of Israel breaching the agreement or seeking to thwart it in the future, stopping the genocide and aggression in itself is a great achievement, especially with the noticeable deterioration in the internal Israeli situation, and the political and social explosions that have begun to appear in it.

Suwailem stresses that any potential Israeli failures or violations of the agreement do not diminish its importance, but rather prove that this achievement represents a turning point in the conflict, explaining that the temporary truce has stopped the bloodbath and given the Palestinians a chance to catch their breath and celebrate their national dignity, which withstood the war machine.

Suwailem believes that the agreement was not limited to stopping the killing only, but also achieved moral gains for the Palestinian people, and this is clearly evident in the citizens’ joy and pride in what was achieved. The agreement also cast a shadow over the internal Israeli scene, as it provoked angry reactions among the extreme right-wing Israelis, while the Arab peoples and free people around the world welcomed it as a clear frustration for the Israeli plans that failed to achieve their declared goals.

Suwailem points out that through this agreement, the resistance was able to preserve its dignity and steadfastness, which strengthens its position as a fighting force on the ground.

Suwailem asserts that the agreement proved that the Palestinian people, despite all the horrors of war and destruction they were exposed to, did not show any willingness to surrender or accept defeat. On the contrary, events showed that the will of the Palestinians would establish a new phase in the conflict.

Suwailem praises the distinctive integration between the field performance of the resistance, political negotiations, and media work, describing this harmony as being decisive in achieving this agreement.

Suwailem believes that Hamas and the resistance factions in Gaza have demonstrated steadfastness and mastery in managing the negotiation battle, alongside managing the military and media battle.

Suwailem believes that the struggle's performance since October 7 until today has been characterised by careful planning and the ability to impose new equations in the conflict. These achievements would not have been possible without the strong will of the resistance, which will continue to play a pivotal role in shaping the future of the Palestinian cause.

Suwailem praises the distinctive integration between the field performance of the resistance, political negotiations, and media work, describing this harmony as being decisive in achieving this agreement.

Suwailem believes that Hamas and the resistance factions were ultimately forced to sign an agreement with those they were seeking to eliminate.

Suwailem believes that the Israeli goals, whether declared or hidden, have completely fallen, pointing out that Israel is no longer able to impose its vision for the so-called “day after” after the war. He also believes that the regional balances and the Palestinian resistance have become the main factor in shaping the next stage, which weakens Israeli hegemony.

Suwailem stresses that there is a big difference between this agreement and the Oslo Agreement. While Oslo was an attempt to establish a self-governing authority within the framework of Israeli hegemony, the current agreement shows Israel’s failure and strategic decline.

Suwailem explains that regional and international parties have come to realize that Israel is no longer able to impose its conditions, which opens the door to presenting the issue of the Palestinian state from new angles based on Israel’s weakness rather than its strength.

Suwailem believes that the agreement gives the Palestinian people an opportunity to reflect and plan to develop a coherent national strategy to deal with the consequences of the war. Although the agreement does not represent a comprehensive peace, it constitutes a long-term calm that can be built upon to change the political equation in the future.

Suwailem stresses that the Palestinian people have proven that their sacrifices were not without a price, and that the next stage requires investing in this legendary steadfastness to build a comprehensive national vision based on the facts that emerged from this war.

Israel failed to implement the mass displacement plan

The writer and political analyst specializing in international relations, Noman Abed, explains that the ceasefire agreement in Gaza came after 15 months of procrastination by the Israeli occupation government and its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. These procrastinations were aimed at prolonging the aggression in order to achieve strategic goals, most notably putting pressure on the residents of the Gaza Strip and turning it into an uninhabitable area, in an attempt to force them to emigrate, in addition to taking revenge on the Palestinian people by inflicting the largest possible number of casualties on them.

Abed points out that Israel has failed to achieve its military and political goals. Despite Netanyahu’s reliance on military operations to recover detainees held by the Palestinian resistance, these operations have not achieved any tangible success, and Israel has not been able to force the resistance to surrender or implement the plan for the mass displacement of the Palestinians.

Abed explains that the administration of US President-elect Donald Trump is playing an indirect role in this change towards concluding the Gaza agreement. Trump, who is primarily focused on US domestic affairs and does not want to see Middle East wars erupt at the beginning of his potential presidency, is leaning towards a strategy based on normalization and economic interests in the region, which increases his pressure on Israel to stop the war.

In contrast, Abed points out that President Joe Biden's administration has been supportive of Netanyahu's aggressive policies and has provided him with unlimited political and military support.

Despite the importance of the agreement in stopping the genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Abed believes that the agreement did not meet all aspirations.

Abed points out that four main issues should have been addressed in the agreement: cancelling the buffer zones, including the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque, to stop the violations being practiced, in order to achieve geographical and political unity between the West Bank and Gaza, especially since the operation that began on October 7 came under the slogan “Al-Aqsa Flood.”

According to Abed, the agreement should have included the release of Lebanese prisoners held since October 2023 as part of the agreement, in loyalty to the Lebanese resistance and its sacrifices, as well as a clear political vision, as the Palestinian blood that was shed and the great sacrifices must be invested in achieving comprehensive political achievements, not just humanitarian ones, to ensure that the results of the agreement are a starting point for a better future for the Palestinian cause.

Abed stresses that the agreement is an important achievement to stop the massacre in Gaza, but it did not achieve a complete victory or a comprehensive political settlement that would guarantee the existence of the Palestinian cause.

Abed stresses that the agreement in Gaza does not rise to the level of the Oslo Agreement, whether we agree with it or not, in terms of it being an international and political agreement that discussed the major issues of the Palestinian people.

Abed stresses the need to be cautious in dealing with the next stage, as it is likely that the Netanyahu government will try to resume the aggression, calling for focusing on formulating a future political agreement that ensures that there will be no return to the circle of conflict again, and establishes a new stage that strengthens Palestinian rights.

Netanyahu's failure to achieve his goals and his decline in popularity

Writer and political researcher Dr. Aql Salah describes that over the course of fifteen months of the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians have suffered from unprecedented levels of destruction and starvation, as what happened is a “historical miracle” recorded in the steadfastness of the Palestinian people, despite the ugliness of the Israeli crimes that amount to genocide, and the Palestinians have shown an exceptional ability to resist, in the midst of a catastrophic and unprecedented reality.

Salah believes that the Israeli scene clearly indicates the failure of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to achieve any of the goals he announced at the beginning of the aggression. He promised to eliminate Hamas and the resistance, and to recover the Israeli prisoners by military force, but he faced a disastrous failure that led to a decline in his popularity and his description as a “cartoon hero” by the Israeli media.

Salah believes that the agreement, which was reached under international sponsorship and mediators Egypt and Qatar, is an implicit admission by Netanyahu of his inability to continue the war or achieve its declared goals. Despite his continued attempts to justify the agreement to the extreme right in his government, voices within Israel describe the agreement as “catastrophic,” especially with the continued fall of Palestinian rockets and the Israeli army suffering heavy losses in the final days of the fighting.

On the Palestinian side, Salah asserts that the Palestinian people, despite the ongoing bombardment and gross violations of human rights and international laws, refused to surrender or raise the white flag, pointing out that the Palestinian resistance escalated its combat operations, inflicting heavy losses on the Israeli army, which forced the occupation to accept an agreement that included the release of Palestinian prisoners, including those sentenced to life imprisonment, an achievement he described as a “miracle” in the history of the Palestinian struggle.

Salah points out that international pressure, specifically from the US administration headed by Donald Trump, played a decisive role in forcing Netanyahu to sign.

Salah explains that the agreement does not represent an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but rather is merely an agreement to achieve limited goals for both parties.

Salah points out that the occupation, which aimed to liquidate Palestinian prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment, found itself forced to release them under the conditions of the resistance, which reflects the failure and arrogance of Israeli policy.

Salah compares the recent agreement in Gaza with the Oslo Agreement, noting that each has its own different circumstances and contexts. While Oslo was a political agreement under international sponsorship and direct negotiations between the PLO and Israel, the Gaza Agreement is a ceasefire that came as a result of regional mediation and without direct negotiations.

Salah explains that Oslo aimed to build a Palestinian political entity, but failed because Israel did not abide by its terms, while the Gaza agreement focuses on ending the war and exchanging prisoners, without political ambition.

Salah believes that the recent agreement in the Gaza Strip reflects the need for calm between the two parties, but it places the international community before its responsibilities towards the failure of previous peace agreements, especially Oslo, to grant the Palestinian people their rights.

Salah points out that the world has begun to realize the need to formulate a new agreement that addresses the roots of the conflict and grants the Palestinians their rights.

Salah stresses that the continuation of the occupation means the continuation of the resistance, stressing that any agreement without achieving justice for the Palestinians will remain just an agreement and a warrior's rest that may be long-term in a long-term conflict.

The judgment on the agreement depends on the results of implementing its provisions.

Writer and political analyst Suleiman Basharat believes that the agreement on the Gaza Strip represents an important pivotal point in the path of a ceasefire and ending the ongoing war waged by Israel against the Palestinians in the Strip.

Basharat considers this agreement to be a positive shift in terms of stopping the humanitarian tragedy and genocide facing the people of Gaza. Despite the enormous human losses, the agreement confirms that the Palestinian resistance was able to thwart Israel’s strategic goals, such as displacing the people of the Strip and ending the resistance militarily.

Basharat explains that one of the most prominent achievements of the resistance was the failure of the Israeli efforts to recover the Israeli prisoners through the military operation, and that the terms related to the release of the Palestinian prisoners are a clear gain, as the resistance was able to transform its strengths into tangible results.

Basharat confirms that the agreement includes protocols related to the humanitarian relief file, such as the entry of aid and the reconstruction and restoration of the health sector, which is a positive and important step to alleviate the suffering of the population.

The most important thing in the agreement, according to Basharat, is what is being said about a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip after implementing its final stages, which represents a turning point in confronting Israel’s attempts to reoccupy Gaza militarily.

Despite the positives, Basharat believes that the final judgment on the agreement cannot be issued now, but rather depends on the results of the practical application of its provisions throughout the implementation stages.

Basharat points out that there are many concerns and caveats, including reconstruction mechanisms, which will remain subject to political and regional conditions.

Basharat stresses that the agreement does not represent a peace agreement as much as it is an agreement to stop a bloody war, while Basharat expresses his hope that this agreement will open a horizon for political and diplomatic paths that lead to the achievement of Palestinian national rights, including sovereignty and political rights.

Basharat points out that this will depend on the Palestinians’ ability to unify their position and formulate a unified national project, as well as on the positions of regional and international parties.

In comparison with the Oslo Accords, Basharat explains that there is a big difference between the two agreements. The Oslo Accords were comprehensive in their nature and national reference, as they provided a comprehensive framework for the Palestine Liberation Organization. As for the current agreement, it is only related to the war on Gaza, and includes the resistance factions in Gaza and not all Palestinians or the PLO, which makes it a temporary agreement in its geographical and political dimensions.

Basharat points out that the Oslo Accords were based on the principle of "land for peace," while the current agreement can be called "peace for peace," meaning stopping the confrontations and stopping the Israeli attacks on the Strip.

Basharat stresses that the agreement may carry a more comprehensive future political horizon if subsequent developments bring about a shift in American, Israeli and international positions.

Basharat believes that it is still too early to judge this, and that the developments that will follow the war will be the decisive factor in determining the extent to which sustainable political gains can be achieved for the Palestinians.