February 2: Getting to “truce” in Gaza

In which, hopes rise at the prospect of truces and ceasefires, President Biden contemplates avenging service member deaths in Jordan, and there is clearly something shifting in voter preferences.

Getting to “truce” in Gaza

The last several weeks in Israel-Hamas diplomacy, the watchword has been “ceasefire. This week, though, “ceasefire” has been replaced by “truce” as the region’s utility intermediary Qatar hosted initial meetings on a potential deal, then Israeli and Hamas negotiators met in Cairo to discuss the pieces of a potential ceasefire, which it appears Hamas has given tacit approval to. 

Neither side is wanting to give the other an advantage, so don’t think that merely talking about a truce is slowing down the pace of the fighting. It hasn’t.

So, what’s the difference between a “truce” and a “ceasefire”. Functionally, both can bring an end to the fighting, but ceasefires are generally briefer cessations of hostilities that can still end with combatants in the field, ready to continue duking it out. A truce is generally understood to be the same thing, but I suspect it's being used in this context to suggest a broader, hopefully longer lasting deal designed to serve as an intermediary step to some kind of restoration of the status quo ante in the Gaza Strip. 

Certainly, with Israel flooding cleared Hamas tunnels, and UNRWA facing steep funding cuts, Hamas is rapidly losing what slim tactical advantages it had in the field as well as a critical economic lifeline.

Israel, for its part, is facing an increasingly hostile Biden administration and global opinion. Additionally, South Africa appears intent on keeping the lawfare pressure on Israel after the less-than-desired outcome at the ICJ last week. 

In other words, a critical prior condition appears to have been reached in getting warring parties to the negotiating table: Both sides are anticipating undesirable outcomes if the present course continues.