Will U.S. Sustain Pressure on Israel to Implement the Ceasefire Deal?

President-elect Donald Trump appears to have followed through with his promise to achieve a Gaza ceasefire before his inauguration on January 20. The incoming administration succeeded where the Biden administration failed, showing that U.S. pressure on Israel can lead to results. While many dismissed Trump’s threat that “all hell will break out” if the hostages do not return home as empty bluster, he and his aggressive Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff ramped up the pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and proved that this was the missing ingredient in stalled talks.  

According to the mediators, both Hamas and Israel agreed to a Gaza ceasefire and prisoner exchange deal that had been on the table for much of the past year—the same deal that the Biden administration had been unable to bring across the finish line for all those months. But it is important to note that the Israeli position is still unclear. The mediators say Israel agreed, and Israeli President Isaac Herzog announced his support for the deal, but the prime minister’s office issued a statement suggesting the details of the deal were still under discussion.   

In the meantime, Israel’s military campaign continued to extend its slaughter. Even as the mediators finalized the ceasefire deal, the Israeli miliary launched a blitz of airstrikes killing 62 people in the 24 hours before it was announced and at least 40 afterward. Over the past 15 months, Israel’s assault on Gaza has killed at least 46,000 people, most of whom are women and children, and many thousands more still missing and likely dead. Major human rights groups have formally accused Israel of committing genocide after months of systematically killing civilians, destroying health care infrastructure and preventing humanitarian aid from entering Gaza, leading to mass starvation.  

While the ceasefire does not go into effect until January 19, and Netanyahu seems to still be trying to throw a last-minute wrench into the agreement, getting to this point in negotiations is undoubtedly a positive step for Palestinians and Israelis. Nonetheless, the bigger challenge is yet to come. Qatar, the U.S. and Egypt worked tirelessly to bring this war to an end, but the concern now becomes whether the mediators can sustain pressure on the two sides to fully implement the three phases of the deal. This would ultimately lead to a permanent ceasefire, a full Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza, the return of hundreds of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, and reconstruction efforts.  

Why Now?  

The mediation process over the past 15 months has been fraught. The various mediators used their relationships to push the two sides to reach a deal with little success until now. While these efforts led to a temporary pause in November 2023 that saw the release of hundreds of Israeli and Palestinian prisoners, that was a limited arrangement, and no far-reaching agreement has been concluded since. In the meantime, Qatar came close to ending its mediation altogether, even reportedly considering expelling Hamas from Doha after months of confronting scrutiny and pressure from policymakers in Washington and Israel. The signing of a ceasefire deal is the ultimate vindication for Doha, in particular, which affirmed the necessity of its backchannel with Hamas to securing a deal. 

Israel’s decision to sign a ceasefire deal marks a major shift for the Netanyahu government. The deal is essentially the same framework that has been on the table since May, which Hamas had previously agreed to and the Israeli side rejected several times before. Previously, Netanyahu insisted on the necessity of continuing the war and maintaining a permanent military presence in Gaza for security reasons, arguing that Hamas was still not defeated and continued to pose a threat. Several Israeli ministers, particularly far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, did not hide their ambition to re-introduce Jewish settlements into Gaza. So, how should we understand this turnaround from the Israeli side?  

Crucially, Trump’s use of pressure seems to have worked. It is unclear what kind of leverage Trump and Witkoff employed to convince Netanyahu, but it was more than what the Biden administration was prepared to wield, and seemingly enough to force the Israeli premier’s acquiescence. Still, a key concern remains—whether Netanyahu intends to honor the agreement or simply agreed to appease Trump, bring some of the hostages home, and allow the pressure campaign to subside until he can find a way to resume military operations and avoid a withdrawal. Netanyahu and Trump have not always seen eye to eye, and tensions could arise between them over the implementation of this deal moving forward. After supporting the 2020 Trump Middle East Peace Plan, Netanyahu angered the president by announcing West Bank annexation plans soon after, which Trump said “was going too far.” Trump told Barak Ravid in an interview for the journalist’s book on the Abraham Accords that Netanyahu “never wanted peace” with the Palestinians.   

Another possibility is that Trump offered a quid pro quo to convince Netanyahu and his far-right ministers. That may include Israel agreeing to leave Gaza in exchange for Trump’s endorsement of formal Israeli annexation of West Bank settlements and the removal of U.S. sanctions on some Israeli settler groups. While those far-right ministers have decried the ceasefire agreement and threatened to abandon the government, they may be playing the part.  

Israel’s domestic political situation also likely played a critical role. Domestic pressure to bring the hostages home, as well as internal disagreement in Israel’s military establishment, has intensified in recent months as ceasefire talks stalled. The increasing international pressure on Israel likely played an important, albeit limited, role as well. For example, the Gaza war derailed Netanyahu’s ambitions to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia, with the Saudi crown prince since labelling Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide and calling for the suspension of Israel’s membership at the United Nations General Assembly, among other actions. The UN has condemned Israel’s war on Gaza, notably its systematic killing of civilians and refusal to allow the necessary humanitarian agencies into the territory. Fifteen months of these condemnations likely began to take its toll on the Israeli political establishment.   

Hamas’ agreement to this deal is not a surprise at this stage, given their public acceptance of a very similar deal last year. But regional dynamics likely further convinced their negotiating team to move forward and compromise where possible. U.S. pressure on Qatar to cut ties with Hamas, by potentially shuttering the office in Doha and expelling its members, likely raised alarm bells with the negotiating team even though it ultimately did not happen. Hamas began to compromise on key points of contention from a year ago, such as their previous insistence on an immediate, permanent ceasefire to release any hostages, rather than a temporary, phased ceasefire and hostage release. Further compromises related to timings and prisoner lists were likely made over the past several months, but the same phased framework and withdrawal has been on the table since May.  

The lack of political will in Tel Aviv for a deal was the main problem during this period. But Hamas’ political will likely increased even more in recent weeks, given the significant losses that their foreign partners suffered. There is a clear sense that Iran and its so-called “Axis of Resistance,” which supported Hamas militarily and politically, have been severely weakened after Israel’s elimination of Hezbollah’s leadership and military infrastructure, the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, and Israel’s destruction of military infrastructure in Iran.  

Going Forward 

Implementation is the key issue now. The guarantors of the deal are its mediators—Qatar, Egypt and the U.S.—and their role will continue to be crucial. But the most pressing question moving forward is whether Trump is willing and able to sustain his pressure on Netanyahu. Trump’s framing of this deal has always been focused on releasing Israeli—and dual-citizen American—hostages, and not much else. This sends a worrying signal that Trump may lose focus once the first part of the deal is concluded, especially as his attention turns to his domestic agenda. In this sense, Qatar and Egypt—as well as regional heavyweights like Saudi Arabia and the UAE—will be crucial in keeping Trump engaged on this issue.  

Given the stated goals of the Netanyahu government with respect to Gaza, it is difficult to envision this agreement reaching its later stages: full Israeli withdrawal and the return of Palestinians from north to south. But even if the third phase is reached, even more difficult questions remain unresolved, such as financing Gaza’s reconstruction; reconciling between Hamas and Fatah; reforming the Palestinian Authority and arranging for the governance of Gaza and Hamas’ participation in the “day after”; ending the Israeli blockade of Gaza and occupation of the West Bank; and resuming a serious political process for Palestinian statehood. The Israeli government has made it clear that it will not sign on to any process that would support Palestinian statehood, equating it to rewarding Hamas for the October 7 attack. Any trust between the Israeli and Palestinian sides has been completely destroyed amid the death and destruction of the past 15 months.  

Still, the process of moving forward starts with steps, and the first of those is respecting all three phases of this ceasefire deal. In that regard, Trump putting pressure on Israel remains the key ingredient.