On Oct. 9, the two-year Israel-Hamas war entered a tentative new chapter when the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and Hamas paused hostilities under the first phase of a U.S.-brokered deal. Since the announcement of ceasefire, humanitarian organizations have responded, with hundreds of aid trucks expected to enter Gaza daily. United Nations, for its part, has pledged a large-scale 60-day surge in the delivery of food and medical supplies, as well as cash assistance to 200,000 families surviving what the UN has described as widespread famine. .
The Oct. 9 deal marked a formal pause in fighting. The IDF announced troop repositioning and an official start of the truce at noon local time. Israeli hostages both dead and alive, were slated for return to Israel and prisoner exchanges were outlined.
Aid agencies such as UNICEF moved into position, and the U.N. and its partners had had 170,000 metric tons of supplies ready to deliver. However, critics stress that the truce is only the first stage of a long and fragile process. Questions that remain unsolved include Gaza’s future governance, the disarmament of Hamas, the ending of the Israeli blockade and the rebuilding of infrastructure.
Yet even as the ceasefire took effect, cracks in the truce emerged. Reports of renewed shelling in Gaza preceding the deadline on Oct. 9 and ongoing hostilities raised immediate doubts about the durability of the pause. According to human rights group the World Food Program USA, the deal cannot by itself deliver justice or relief unless the blockade in Gaza that has restricted access to aid and transportation of citizens is ended and reconstruction begins in earnest.
In an interview with The Mossy Log on Oct. 28, International Affairs Professor Kyle Lascurettes expressed his concern that the ceasefire will not hold in the long term.
“I’m a cynic on a lot of things, but I don’t think it’s very sustainable, even judging by the fact that we’ve already seen a couple of violations of it, and there’s violations of it in the news today,” Lascurettes said.
President Donald Trump has taken credit for the perceived success of the ceasefire agreement. Within Israel, a similar sentiment holds: poll conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute shows that 95% of Israelis believe Trump was the contributing factor in the ceasefire. Lascurettes commented on his hesitance to attribute this success to Trump.
“President Trump has a propensity to declare things that he accomplishes as much bigger deals than they are,” Lascurettes said. “And while I was happy to see a ceasefire, a ceasefire is nowhere near the final settlement between Hamas and Israel, much less between the Palestinian people and Israel. The ceasefire has none of the components of a lasting peace. I’m fairly pessimistic about its ability to hold.”
As news of the ceasefire in Israel spread, Lewis & Clark students reacted in differing ways.
Isaac Babus ’26 shared his opinion that the news is largely being met by silence.
“I’ve seen a lot of silence, if anything, which I found very ironic, considering. Some clubs have turned their whole being into being what I would call anti-Israel. Because they’re not talking about the ceasefire, they don’t seem to care. And when they do talk about it, it’s to say that only Israel has broken (the agreement) when Hamas has not returned the hostages — the deceased hostages — which they were supposed to do, nor are they saying they will disarm, which is just a way to continue the violence,” Babus said.
Babus is also a member of Hillel and discussed the group’s reaction toward the ceasefire announcement.
“Internally, a lot of us have been very happy to see the violence coming to an end. We hope that both sides will do what they can to stick to the ceasefire, as in Hamas disarming and releasing the deceased hostages, and Israel cracking down on extremism in the West Bank, as well as not allowing members of the government to topple all the deals,” he said.
Julian Alegria ’29 reflected on his reluctance to celebrate and the reactions he has observed from his peers.
“I think that it’s honestly just the bare minimum, and my reaction when hearing about it was a bit of relief, hope that it’s properly implemented, and that there is a proper administration of aid, food and a complete withdrawal from Palestine itself. But I guess overall, I am holding my breath in,” Alegria said.
Alegria then spoke to the reactions he has observed on campus.
“From my peers,” he continued, “I feel like some people are hearing it, and they believe that things are over. Even then, there’s still going to be systematic oppression that is filled into the foundation of Palestine. And that things are not ever really truly going to be over. It’s just a small step in the right direction.”
Lascurettes, on the other hand, says he has observed little dissent or conversation on campus.
“I’ve certainly observed the politically active campus and the campus that, in many corners, cares deeply about this conflict,” Lascurettes noted. “Other than talking about the ceasefire in my classes, particularly IA 100, I have not seen a notable change in the climate on campus surrounding this.”
Lascurettes continued, speculating that the news of the ceasefire has done little to sway current opinions on campus.
“I think both advocates for Israel and critics of Israel are not changing their positions or having their positions altered too much by the ceasefire. Now, if somehow, the ceasefire ends up holding or becomes the basis of negotiations for a longer, more detailed and structured piece, maybe that will change. But so far, I haven’t observed any change.”
About the Author
