What Israel and Hamas Actually Want from the Gaza Ceasefire

"Earlier this month, Israel and Hamas announced a ceasefire to the two-year war in Gaza. The agreement was brokered in part by the United States, but American officials are concerned, according to the New York Times, that the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, may be trying to end it. And indeed, since the ceasefire began, nearly a hundred Palestinians and two Israeli soldiers have been killed. (Per the first stage of the deal, Israel remains in control of approximately fifty-three per cent of Gaza.)"

"I recently spoke by phone with Michael Milshtein, the head of the Palestinian Studies Forum at Tel Aviv University. Milshtein served as senior adviser to the commander of COGAT, which supervises civilian policy in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and as the head of the Department for Palestinian Affairs in the I.D.F.'s military-intelligence wing. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity,"

"Most or maybe all of the scenarios are going to be bad, so we're not speaking about the best case, but the least worst case. And that would be the beginning of a new regime, the establishment of a new Palestinian regime in Gaza, which does not include Hamas. There would be a symbolic deployment of international forces, and a kind of coördination system between Israel, the United States, and other international forces about any violations of the ceasefire."

A U.S.-partly brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas has coincided with ongoing violence and fears that Israeli leadership may seek to end the truce. Israel retains control of roughly fifty-three percent of Gaza under the first stage of the deal. Michael Milshtein, experienced in Israeli civilian and military administration of Palestinian affairs, outlines a least-worst scenario: the creation of a new Palestinian regime in Gaza excluding Hamas, supported by a symbolic international force and coordinated monitoring. Effective early-warning mechanisms and international coordination would enable immediate Israeli responses to threats, but political and strategic frictions make a lasting ceasefire difficult.

Read at The New Yorker