Part 6/8:
Despite immediate halting of violence, critics warn that simply institutionalizing a ceasefire does not address the root causes of the conflict. Skeptics argue that the very conditions leading to prior escalations remain unchanged. Yet others posit that stopping the immediate bloodshed was necessary—a pragmatic acknowledgment that peace often requires compromise.
The deal, while imperfect, illustrates a pragmatic approach where parties could momentarily set aside longstanding grievances to achieve a crucial cessation of hostilities. Critics of the temporary nature of the agreement cite the precedent of “kicking the can down the road,” but proponents insist that establishing peace, even in its most rudimentary form, is paramount in this tumultuous region.