The recent ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas has garnered widespread attention, offering a brief respite in a conflict rooted on decades of complex history. While the accord brings immediate relief, questions linger about its long-term implications and the broader challenges.
In the wake of these developments, several Notre Dame professors offered their perspectives on the agreement, its potential limitations and the historical context surrounding it.
A. Rashied Omar, an associate professor of Islamic studies and peacebuilding in the Keough School's Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies approaches the agreement with cautious optimism. While he acknowledged the deal “as a vital first step toward easing the suffering of civilians,” Omar underscored the importance of sustained efforts to ensure it serves as more than just a temporary deal to halt hostilities.
“However, fragile truces demand sincere follow-through and unwavering dedication to just peace or they risk merely postponing deeper hostility,” Omar said.
He further characterized the deal as a “narrow opening for meaningful diplomacy,” emphasizing that a “lasting resolution hinges on addressing the fundamental injustices endured by Palestinians.” He then adds that the “ceasefire briefly curbs the immediate violence,” yet it remains unclear whether it substantially addresses the long-standing injustices.”
Atalia Omer, a Jewish professor of religion, conflict and peace studies at the Keough School of Global Affairs, offers a different perspective, highlighting the historical baggage that molds the conflict. She draws from her recent visits to the region, where she witnessed the devastating impact of the violence firsthand.
“You saw that systematic destruction of not only people, but of infrastructure, of life: the hospitals, the schools, the universities. There are no universities, no schools, no hospitals. The level of destruction is beyond belief,” Omer said.
She then furthered her account by reflecting on the human toll of the conflict.
“The deepest feeling that I got is just utter despair,” Omer said.
Yet, she called for a focus on humanity as the center of the crisis.
“We're talking about humans. Yes, no, it's not a deal. It's an agreement,” Omer said.
Omer also addresses the broader political and historical dimensions, pointing to the fragmentation of the Palestinian population that has characterized the geographical area for centuries, framing it as central for the perpetuating issues.
“At the very, very heart of Palestinian grievance, or conceptions of justice, is the right of return,” Omer said. “[The] horrific attack of October 7 did not happen in a vacuum.”
Omer argued that its origins date back to the partition of 1948, which created layers of displacement and feelings of disconnection.
“Those 100 years are the fragmentation of Palestinian geographies, and especially after 1948 and after 1967 and then 1993 you have at least five different categories of geographies of Palestinians as part of its fragmentation, Gaza is one. And then if you look at the map of the West Bank, you see many, many, many small Gazas,” Omer said.
Omer also highlighted the political groups that govern the conflict, noting the ineffectiveness of the Palestinian authority and the push for normalization that bypasses the Palestinians.
“The experience of incarceration is so central to the Palestinian experience,” she said.
She then acknowledges the Israeli sentiment in which the lack of an immediate military during the attack of Oct. 7 instilled a profound sense of fear among the population.
“You always think that you know, somehow the country will defend you, the military will defend you. And then most of the people on October 7 were totally alone,” Omer said.
When asked about the agreement itself, she expresses dismay, describing it as “really devastating because, you know, the same agreement was on the table a long, long time ago, in May and July. It could have been from the very start.”
She furthers her grievances by reflecting on the violence that preceded it.
“The level of violence was so high in the West Bank, it really brings to the surface how fragile this agreement is, and that it's not really like it doesn't feel like a beginning of a real, you know, solution,” she said.
Adding another dimension to the discussion, Asher Kaufman, a historian and professor at the Keough School of Global Affairs with expertise in Middle East history and politics, nationalism, colonialism, border studies and memory studies, reflects upon the political climate and motivations driving stakeholders’ behavior.
“Inside Israel, this government and the Prime Minister were forced into this ceasefire agreement. They did not want it,” Kaufman said.
He explains the occurrence through Trump's election and consolidates his argument by referring to the fact that the same agreement was on the table in May.
“The only reason it happened is because Trump entered into the equation,” he said. “He [Trump] made the point about how great he is as a deal breaker, but now you know there are other issues that are more important for him.”
Kaufman fears Trump's attention will diverge from the issue, causing the Israeli government to break with the next stages of the agreement. He expresses skepticism about the Israeli commitment to the deal, asserting that the only way to ensure Israel's adherence to the cease-fire agreement is through “continued pressure on the [Israeli] government, especially from the American side.”
Kaufman then delves into Hamas’ motivations, arguing that the group is using the deal for its own political gains.
“Hamas wants to show that it is still calling the shots, that it is still in control of Gaza, and this agreement serves its purpose,” he said. “The images from the hostage release on Sunday. It was all a demonstration of the force of Hamas. So after 14–15 months of war, where Israel decimated the Gaza Strip and Hamas, Hamas was able to come up out of the tunnels and demonstrate that it is still there, it is still strong and viable.”
Kaufman argues that Hamas’ priorities now align with a ceasefire.
“Hamas has an interest to realize the agreement, not because they are, you know, a righteous organization that, simply because the agreement [that] serves it politically makes sense,” Kaufman said.
He further emphasizes Hamas’ blunt indifference for humanity, by noting that the group perpetuates suffering while bolstering its narrative.
“Hamas started it all on October 7, and has led to a war that has now killed tens of thousands of Palestinians,” Kaufman said. “There is not even an ounce of regret or a reflection of did we do something wrong? So I don't think that Hamas cares about human lives here. I think that actually, from the perspective of Hamas, the more Palestinian suffering, the better it is for its own political message.”
When asked about the implications of the agreement, Kaufman echoed similar sentiments to that of his peers.
“It doesn't resolve anything. It simply addressed the current war, the current conflict. It's a band aid to deal with the current crisis,” he said. “A needed step to end the suffering in Gaza.”
Ebrahim Moosa, a Muslim and Mirza Family professor of Islamic thought and Muslim societies in the Keough School of Global Affairs, shares his rather stark and impassioned critique of the ceasefire and its broader implications.
He frames the ceasefire as deeply insufficient.
“The ceasefire is just one more footnote in the catastrophe that the Palestinian people have suffered. And the atrocities that Israel has been committing for 76 years,” Moosa said.
Moosa, much like his peers, recognizes the ceasefire to be a temporary fix that fails to address the root causes of the conflict.
“We are basically talking about band-aid operations,” he said. “The likelihood that hostilities will restart is very high. The only solution is the resolution of the suppression of Palestine and justice for Palestinians.”
He offered his insight on what would be the only way to resolve the conflict, calling upon “the resolution of the suppression of Palestine and justice for Palestinians.”
Moosa's rhetoric takes a decisive tone as he addresses the moral implications of the war.
“There are no two sides to genocide. There's a victim and the victimizer,” he said.
While the ceasefire agreement does temporarily reprieve the violence taking place, the limitations of the deal and the broader challenges it fails to address remain on the forefront of discourse.
From concerns over the fragility of the agreement, the current political climate, the motivations of key stakeholders and the enduring human toll, Notre Dame professors underscore the necessity of sustained efforts and meaningful solutions to achieve lasting peace.
