A ceasefire agreement, in general terms, is a suspension of hostilities between warring parties. It can be unilateral, or it can be agreed to between the parties during a peace process. In the latter case, it may be part of a larger substantive settlement agreement and can be time limited or contemplated to be permanent. It may include ad hoc provisions addressing specific circumstances of the particular conflict (such as the return of conflict-related prisoners, refugees and internally displaced persons; re-establishment of State administration over territory by merging State and non-State forces); timetables for the cessation of violence, for disarmament, and for demilitarization; prosecution of war criminals, amnesties, or reconciliation; and transitional justice in post-conflict situations).
The success of the current ceasefire agreement will depend on many factors, including clear sequencing, credible verification, and sustained diplomacy to ensure compliance. It also depends on whether the US can persuade Netanyahu’s coalition partners resistant to concessions, and a public tired of two years of conflict, that continued restraint serves their political interests. Achieving a lasting peace will require the Trump administration to press Israel, as an ally with a substantial economic interest in regional stability, to accept a path to a future Palestinian state.
Nathan argues that to be effective, ceasefire agreements should include provisions that address the internal dynamics of a conflict. These can include reducing the ability of parties to evade commitments through use of proxy actors, and ensuring that third-party monitors have access to information on the movements of parties’ forces and other relevant activities. In this way, the potential for ‘mistakes’ that reignite armed conflict is reduced.
About the Author
