rewrite this content and keep HTML tags
Arguably, the power dynamics between Israel and Hamas were highly asymmetric when this agreement was negotiated. Over the past 15 months, Israel has shown that it has far superior military strength to Hamas.
Moreover, by now, Israel was arguably largely willing to ignore Hamas’s one political card: the group’s October 7 release of hostages.
Thus, the terms of the agreement could potentially be seen as a type of strangulation contract that one party (Israel in this case) has imposed on the other due to an extreme power imbalance.
Over the past 12 months, Hamas has agreed to the text of a ceasefire several times, but the terms have been changed by Israel – and no agreement has been reached.
Hamas has also tried to change the terms of the ceasefire.
But due to power differentials it has been relatively unsuccessful in pressuring Israel to agree to its demands.
To reach an agreement, Hamas has given up its two main demands: the complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip and a permanent ceasefire.
There are three phases of this agreement. In the first phase, Israel would potentially release thousands of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for 33 hostages. Less than 60 hostages are believed to have survived.
But it is telling that in the past, Israel has arrested other Palestinians or re-arrested many of those released under similar deals.
These types of strangulated contracts also took place during the Syrian Civil War. There, they were branded as reconciliation agreements.
