Recently, under the framework of the "20-point agreement" proposed by US President Trump, Israel and Hamas finally announced that they had reached an agreement on the issue of peace. A few days ago, both sides were still at odds because Hamas disagreed with Israel's proposal to withdraw its troops in a phased manner and refused to engage in "split negotiations" with Israel, insisting on achieving all goals at once. In addition, Hamas also asked the international community to provide guarantees to ensure supervision of Israel's full withdrawal. These two issues are the last layer of "window paper" for both sides, and the United States has also expressed its willingness to cooperate and coordinate.

On the 8th, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that Israel and Hamas had signed the first phase of their proposed ¡°20 Point Plan¡± agreement. According to the plan, Israel would withdraw part of its troops in exchange for the release of 20 hostages; if all the plans were achieved, then the Israeli military would also withdraw to the border agreed on both sides. In addition, the guaranteed countries for the agreement were the United States, Qatar, Egypt and Turkey; which means that the two sides had ¡°almost negotiated¡± on the basic issues, and now the signed document is completed, there is basically no problem.

In other words, the Israeli army did not withdraw, and after Hamas delivered the hostages, even if there were guarantees, it was not possible for Israel to ¡°destroy¡± the agreement. The Trump-led withdrawal agreement was more like an opportunity to pursue ¡°intermediate outcomes¡± and failed to address the root issues of the Israeli conflict. Lack of clear terms, lack of trust between the two sides, and external imbalances intertwined, making it difficult to get out of the history of ¡°short ceasefire to re-break.¡±

The Israeli right-wing media is unhappy with this, saying that the clause in the agreement that Israel would release 1,000 Palestinian prisoners contains risks of potentially exploding future conflict. In addition to the agreement that did not set a clear timetable for the full withdrawal of Israel¡¯s troops, the agreement only vaguely expressed the ¡°stage-by-stage withdrawal¡± as a response to Hamas¡¯ core demands, this ambiguity provided space for Israel¡¯s delayed withdrawal and also made Hamas doubtful about the enforcement of the agreement. On the issue of de-militarization in Gaza, the agreement required Hamas to withdraw weapons and did not participate in governance, while Hamas made it clear that ¡°the fundamental clause of conflict will not be resolved

Most importantly, under the premise of a fundamental lack of mutual trust between Israel and Hamas, the interests of external forces may infiltrate the process of implementation of the agreement, leading to the ceasefire being alienated from the ¡°compromise between the two sides¡± to the ¡°multi-strength¡± and putting Gaza in a more complex geographical situation. The phase-by-phase withdrawal agreement is a political operation of ¡°suspension of crisis rather than problem solving¡±. It has not cleared the framework for the sovereignty and governance of the Gaza Strip, nor has it eliminated Israeli security anxiety and Palestinian survival demands, nor has it established a sustainable conflict control mechanism.