Towards a Ceasefire: Geopolitical Implications of an Emerging Israel-Hamas Deal

Dr. Zheer Ahmed

The recent developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict indicate possible shifts in the precarious dynamics of West Asia, with considerable ramifications for regional stability and international diplomacy. Should it come to fruition, the provisional agreement currently under discussion may signify a crucial turning point in the 14-month conflict, potentially ushering in new regional dynamics and amplifying global engagement.

There are three key parties to negotiate an armistice agreement between Israel and Hamas. They are the United States, Qatar, and Egypt. The larger geopolitical interests are reflected in their mediation. For example, Qatar positioned itself as an important mediator due to its hosting of indirect conversations and historical ties with Hamas. Qatar’s participation demonstrates its desire to continue having a say in resolving regional disputes. On the other hand, Egypt’s stakes are kept high due to its proximity to Gaza and shared security concerns, especially with regard to the dynamics of the border and the movement of displaced Palestinians. The United States’ involvement demonstrates its dual goals of stabilizing a vital ally in Israel and obtaining the release of American captives. The strong involvement played by the Biden administration may also represent an effort to leave a record of successful diplomacy in the region before political shifts could change the goals of U.S. foreign policy.

Israel-Hamas Calculations

The ceasefire development is a complex dynamic between Hamas and Israel, characterized by strategic calculations and conflicting goals. For Hamas, the agreement represents an opportunity to negotiate, which will strengthen its position. The release of hostages serves as a bargaining tool, allowing Hamas to pursue broader objectives, including securing the release of Palestinian detainees and mitigating the effects of the longstanding blockade on Gaza. These aims align with Hamas’s overarching strategy to enhance its legitimacy and political leverage, both domestically and internationally.

Conversely, Israel remains resolute in its objective to neutralize Hamas’s military capabilities. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz’s statement about maintaining security oversight in Gaza highlights Israel’s intention to prevent future threats and ensure long-term stability. This strategic outlook reflects Israel’s determination to safeguard its national security, while avoiding a resurgence of violence. However, this stance poses significant challenges for negotiations, as Hamas and its supporters are likely to reject any framework perceived as perpetuating conditions resembling occupation. Such arrangements could undermine any potential for sustainable agreements by exacerbating existing grievances among Palestinians.

The interplay between the two parties reveals a deeply entrenched conflict, where each side’s objectives are at odds. Hamas’s prioritization of immediate gains through concessions clashes with Israel’s focus on long-term security measures. This divergence complicates the prospects for reaching a lasting resolution. Furthermore, the broader geopolitical context, including international mediators and regional stakeholders adds another layer of complexity to the negotiations.

Ultimately, while temporary agreements may offer reprieve and address immediate concerns, the fundamental issues driving the conflict remain unresolved. The challenge lies in bridging these divergent goals to create a pathway toward long-lasting peace, a task fraught with significant obstacles given the current dynamics and entrenched mistrust between Israel and Hamas.

Implications for Regional Stability

The ceasefire agreement in Gaza carries profound implications for regional stability. Humanitarian relief would be a critical outcome, providing vital aid to Gaza’s embattled population. However, the extensive destruction demands sustained international support beyond the cessation of hostilities, with long-term efforts required to rebuild infrastructure and restore livelihoods.

Iran’s role as a supporter of Hamas underscores broader power dynamics in the region. The conflict’s resolution may either bolster Iran’s influence through its proxies or diminish its strategic position, depending on the outcome, thereby reshaping regional alliances. The normalization of Arab-Israeli relations exemplified by the Abraham Accords faces new challenges. The conflict has tested these alignments, and a ceasefire could create opportunities for Arab states to recalibrate their diplomatic strategies with Israel. Persistent instability, however, risks fueling extremism in neighboring Lebanon, Syria, and the Sinai Peninsula, drawing more actors into the conflict. Additionally, Israeli governance in Gaza could deepen divisions, heighten resistance, and complicate diplomatic relations, undermining efforts for a two-state solution and broader peacebuilding in the West Asia.

Global Stakes

The agreement will resonate far beyond West Asia, influencing global political dynamics and international relations. The European Union and the United Nations have consistently emphasized on the violation of human rights, including accountability for civilian casualties. Their positions are likely to shape post-conflict reconstruction efforts, with aid and support potentially contingent upon adherence to international humanitarian standards. This focus on accountability may face challenges in navigating the political sensitivities surrounding the conflict while addressing the urgent needs of affected populations.

Meanwhile, the involvement of global powers like Russia and China adds complexity to the geopolitical landscape. Both nations have been expanding their influence in West Asia and may seek to leverage the conflict’s resolution to counterbalance US-led initiatives in the region. Their actions could challenge traditional Western dominance in shaping peace processes and influence future alignments. In this regard, Donald Trump’s return to political prominence after his electoral success creates a degree of unpredictability. His call to finalize a ceasefire before his inauguration signals a potentially firm stance favoring Israeli security priorities. This approach could risk sidelining Palestinian concessions and strain US relations with international stakeholders advocating for a balanced resolution. Together, these factors underscore the far-reaching consequences of the Gaza conflict on global stability and diplomacy.

Finally, it is argued that the provisional Israel-Hamas ceasefire agreement has the capacity to substantially transform the geopolitical landscape of West Asia. The agreement may mitigate immediate humanitarian crisis, but its execution and consequences will challenge the robustness of regional and global diplomacy. The equilibrium of influence between local parties and foreign actors will ascertain whether the ceasefire efforts lead to stability or simply reestablishes conditions for impending conflict.

Dr. Zheer Ahmed, Assistant Professor at Center of Excellence for Geopolitics and International Studies, REVA University, Bengaluru.