Ken Cuno is a professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research interests include the social history of modern Egypt and the Levant, the family, Islamic and secular law, and the U.S. role in the Middle East. Here, Dr. Cuno discusses the tenuous peace agreement between Israel and Hamas that went into effect June 19.

What do Israel and Hamas each hope to gain from the cease-fire? Could it lead to progress in the peace process?

A year ago, after Hamas seized control of Gaza, Israel closed its borders and imposed an economic embargo. But Israel has been unable to protect its citizens from rocket and mortar fire from Gaza. Therefore, both Israel – the government as well as the people – and Hamas and the Gazan Palestinians could benefit from a period of calm. The cease-fire agreement includes the opening of border crossing points between Gaza and Israel and Egypt to allow more goods to enter Gaza. The two sides are also discussing the release of Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit, held by Hamas since 2006, in exchange for several hundred Palestinian prisoners.

The U.S. has insisted on isolating Hamas, but now Israel has agreed to a truce brokered by Egypt. Is this a failure for U.S. policy?

The hard line against Hamas promoted by the Bush administration has failed. Israeli’s economic blockade and Israeli air and artillery strikes, albeit in response to rocket and mortar fire from Gaza, could only go so far until the cost in terms of world opinion was too high. And they did not produce the desired results. Palestinian nationalism places a high value on “steadfastness,” and so a year of economic and military pressure failed to turn Gazans against Hamas, but rather Hamas solidified its position.

If Hamas is serious about the cease-fire why don't they prevent Islamic Jihad and the Aqsa Brigades from firing rockets at Israel? If Israel is serious about the cease-fire, why don't they suspend operations against Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Aqsa Brigades in the West Bank?

Hamas is rather opaque. My impression is that the leadership is divided between “ideologues” and “pragmatists” and they have less discipline than an established state like Israel. They may not be able to prevent Islamic Jihad from firing rockets, and they have said they will not use force to prevent it. Hamas may be signaling Israel that Israel cannot act freely against Palestinian militants in the West Bank. The government of Israel has pointed out that the cease fire concerns only Gaza, and moreover there is enormous political pressure to balance the cease fire with continued action elsewhere. Israel responded to the Jihad rockets in late June by re-closing the border crossing points, but Hamas responded to that by suspending the talks on Corporal Shalit. Both sides have to appease their own hard liners while not going over the brink if the cease-fire is to last, but these actions and reactions could cause it to fail.

Israel is now dealing with both Mahmoud Abbas, the recognized head of the Palestinian Authority, and the rival Hamas leadership in Gaza. Doesn't that complicate the peace process?

Yes, but we should acknowledge two things. First, the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank were already divided before Israel’s decision to deal with Hamas. Hamas controls Gaza. If Israel wants something in Gaza – such as an end to the rocket fire and the return of Corporal Shalit – they have to talk to Hamas. Abbas can’t deliver either one of those things. Second, what peace process? The Bush administration belatedly promoted talks between the PA and Israel last year. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Abbas have obligingly engaged in talks, but without results. As Israeli wags say, there is a lot of process but little peace. The sadly ironic thing is that for decades we were told that if only the Palestinians accepted Israel and gave up violence there could be progress toward peace, and that is still the official American and Israeli line. But in the decade after the PLO forswore violence and limited its territorial ambitions to the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, occupied by Israel in 1967, Israel doubled the number of Jewish settlers in the occupied territories. Israel continues to expand settlements while Olmert and Abbas talk. So if you were a Palestinian, what lesson would you draw?

What are conditions like for the people living in Gaza?

Terrible. But for the reasons I already mentioned, there are limits to the misery that Israel can allow itself to be seen to inflict on the Gazan population. The recent flap over the Fulbright grantees briefly exposed the policy of collective punishment through total closure of the borders. But if nothing else changes Israel will probably continue to allow the bare minimum of food, medicine, water and electricity into Gaza. Supplies are also smuggled into Gaza through tunnels from the Egyptian side of the border. Obviously there is nothing like a normal economy there. As in Lebanon during its civil war, the main employers are the militias. A distorted political-economic situation like this one empowers the militants.