[jfengel]

Sure. Give him the Nobel Peace Prize for it.

He doesn't really deserve it, but honestly, the Peace Prize has such a checkered history that "deserve" really isn't relevant. It's the "obvious" compromise, one they should have reached years ago, and he's the main thing that changed in that time. So let's chalk the win up to him.

I doubt he'll get it. The committee really hates being pestered this way. They can't give it this year, and a year from now this is going to be largely forgotten. The Peace Prize is intended to be for lasting accomplishments, not for a ceasefire.

But I want to give credit where it's due. Both sides hate this compromise -- Israelis are livid about releasing 2,000 prisoners, at least some of whom are mass murderers, in exchange for 20 innocent people who should never have been involved. That was a hard thing to achieve.

So, to demonstrate that I'm willing to say something nice about somebody who will never, ever say anything nice about me: sure, give the man a prize.

[runarberg]

In theory the Palestinians (nor even Hamas) shouldn’t be too unhappy about this compromise. The draft deal had some serious issues, many of which flat out illegal under international law, and in a just world these parts would never actually be implemented and instead Palestine would get their independent and democratic state. As well as many Israelis would be tried for the crime of genocide.

Regarding the hostages, Hamas wasn’t gaining anything by keeping them, the best they could hope for was a prisoner swap, since Israel was more then happy to continue the genocide even if that would cost the lives of hostages. So releasing them will not cost Hamas any leverage, really.

But regrettably we don‘t live in a just world, and the best we can hope for is that this ceasefire will last long enough for the international community to step up their game and actually assert pressure on Israel to not only not break the ceasefire, but also to implement their obligations to international law and give Palestinians a) civil rights b) a political means of resistance, and c) self determination.

[jfengel]

"Just" isn't even on the table. I can only talk about it in terms of Realpolitik, the things that might actually happen.

I don't believe anything past the prisoner swap will be executed. If we're lucky, the ceasefire will last until next year, at which point Israeli elections will alter the calculus. That's so fundamental that everything after that is utterly opaque.

[runarberg]

It pains me to say it, but I fear you are right. Israel has terrible track record when it comes to following their own peace agreements. Aside from unilaterally breaking the ceasefire with Hamas last March, they are also serially breaking their ceasefire with Hezbollah in Lebanon, both without consequences.

I really hope we are wrong here and this will be a lasting ceasefire, but If we are not, Europe has really paid all nearly all the political capital they have to spare for Israel complicity. I think Europe will get some political capital back from this ceasefire, but it will not be enough to cover for Israel breaking it the second time. And my hope (in case this ceasefire fails) that Europe will be forced to assert pressure. It would be better if Europe would assert pressure to Israel to keep the current ceasefire, but regrettably, that is highly unlikely.

[tguvot]

It's somewhat disingenuous of you to talk about Israel terrible track record when it comes to following their own peace agreements and referring to ceasefires as example while ignoring actual peace agreements that been rocks solid for decades.

Ceasefire with hezbollah/lebnon has part that says that in case hezbollah doesn't get disarmed Israel has right to casually bomb whenever it identifies danger to itself. Lebanese are very aware of this part of agreement.

With regards to hamas ceasefire (given that you ignore at least or cheer at most how hamas violated it on oct 7th or hezbollah on oct 8th), it was ceasefire for negotiations. hamas didn't negotiate. ceasefire ended.

[runarberg]

Israel’s track record of unilaterally violating ceasefire agreements (and agreements and international law in general) is a matter of fact, not of opinion. You can look up this track record your self. What other parties do is only more to the point of how unlikely it is that it lasts.

However unlike Israel, the international community asserts pressure onto both Hamas and Hezbollah. Both are considered terrorist groups by several governments, and both are under sever international sanctions as a result. The international community is doing what they can to put pressure on Hamas and Hezbollah (with questionable results), but they are doing very little to put pressure on Israel, which is the reason I talk specifically about Israel’s track record here.