Why Gradualism Can Help in Gaza

As Western and international leaders reflect on the October 9 cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas in Egypt, many are questioning its phased approach. Yet history shows that gradual peace strategies have brought stability to the Middle East before.

The 20-point plan, announced by U.S. President Biden, proposes incremental steps rather than an all-or-nothing solution. This phased structure allows both sides to build trust through small, verifiable actions—like prisoner exchanges and aid deliveries—before tackling the most contentious political issues.

Previous Middle East peace processes demonstrate why this method works. The 1978 Camp David Accords and the 1993 Oslo Agreement both succeeded precisely because they broke complex conflicts into manageable phases. Each step created momentum, goodwill, and practical experience that made the next possible.

For Gazans, this means immediate relief: more humanitarian aid, restored electricity, and reopened crossings. For Israelis, it offers security guarantees through monitored cease-fires. The phased approach doesn't ignore deep-rooted issues but creates space for solutions to emerge organically.

As implementation begins, the world watches whether this gradualist model can finally deliver what previous attempts couldn't—not peace by decree, but peace built piece by piece.

Read the full analysis on Foreign Affairs.