The Israel-Hamas ceasefire has been all but universally welcomed but, as with all ceasefires, it will end, probably in failure. That problems with the agreement have surfaced before it was even implemented, in particular over the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, did not bode well for its longer term success.

The first thing to remember about ceasefires is that they are only a temporary not a permanent - cessation of hostilities. A ceasefire is not a peace agreement.

Some ceasefires have been used as a stepping stone towards peace agreements but, more commonly, they have simply been a pause in fighting to collect and bury the dead, to tend to the injured and to rebuild military strength. If there was a genuine intention to establish peace, the protagonists would have worked out a plan in which the end point was agreed. That has not happened with the Gaza war.

This is not to suggest that a ceasefire even a tenuous one should not be undertaken. Particularly with such a heavy loss of civilian life, any reprieve which allows food and medical aid is critical. But, as with other ceasefires which are hoped to produce a lasting peace, there are many points at which it can fail.

The ceasefire has three stages, at each point showing vulnerabilities. There is already squabbling over the hostage for prisoner release of Stage One. Stage Two entails the Israeli Defence Force leaving Gaza, which will be tested by the continued presence of Hamas militants. The third stage involves the reconstruction of Gaza, presumably largely by third parties.

The biggest problem with ceasefires becoming peace agreements is that there must be a compelling desire on both sides to achieve a longer term outcome. Hamas has been seriously damaged but, continuing to exist, has not indicated that it has fundamentally altered its strategic goal of liberating Palestine by destroying the existing Israeli state.

Similarly, Israel generally and its current government in particular have shown they will not tolerate ongoing threats. But most importantly, the fundamental dynamic that produced the October 7 Hamas attack, of limited Palestinian control over their own affairs, has not been resolved. Gazans may obtain food and, eventually, permanent shelter, but many prisons offer as much.

There is also the question of spoilers on both sides, who retain the capacity to derail even the best efforts of peacemakers. Many within Hamas and groups such as Islamic Jihad are opposed to the terms of the ceasefire, which they could break with a single military action. So, too, in Israel there are members of the governing coalition who dont like the ceasefire agreement and many more hardliners outside it who see Gazas longer term status as not including Palestinians. These groups have already disrupted aid supplies to Gaza, tolerated by the Israeli military and police.

A comprehensive political agreement could possibly end conflict between Palestinian groups and Israel but, at a minimum, that would require the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of the two state solution. Last July, the Israeli parliament voted 68 to nine against allowing the establishment of a Palestinian state, indicating the depth of rejection of that proposition.

And no Palestinian state could be established while the question of illegal West Bank settlements remains. About a half a million Israelis live in settlements in the West bank, and a further 200,000 live in East Jerusalem.

It once might have been possible to shift a small number of settlers, had there been the political will to do so, but the settlements appear to have been in part a mechanism to disallow a permanent peace. And it will now be near impossible to forcibly remove a half a million Israelis regardless of political will which, in turn, does not appear to exist. The status of Jerusalem, which both Israelis and Palestinians claim, has also been be an insurmountable hurdle.

Most positively, the weekends ceasefire agreement may hold long enough to stop the killing and allow critically needed aid. But, even if all parts of the agreement are implemented in good faith, which is a tenuous proposition, any return to the status quo ante will only contain the reasons for future conflict.