Vague and undefined: Experts agree that these are the best descriptions of the ceasefire plan that the US government has shepherded into reality in Gaza by pressuring both Hamas and Israel. Some observers — including the primary mediators — say this vagueness was deliberate and, in fact, necessary in order to get the opponents, the militant Gaza-based Hamas group and the right-wing Israeli government, to agree to anything at all. Others argue that the vague definitions mean there's too much left to negotiate and the lack of clarity could lead to renewed fighting. Show additional content? This content is part of the text you are currently reading. The provider X / Twitter provides this content and may collect your usage data directly when you click “Show content”. Always show content from X / Twitter. "The fact that Israel and Hamas have agreed on a first phase of a ceasefire plan is an important first step," Hugh Lovatt, a senior policy fellow with the Middle East and North Africa program at the European Council on Foreign Relations, or ECFR, told DW in a statement. "However, it is too early to speak of peace and there are still significant issues and concerns that will need to be addressed. ... The key to a successful ceasefire is whether the plans can really be implemented and both sides keep their part of the deal." Questions on issues such as demilitarization in Gaza, the proposed "international stabilization force," international guarantees and the Israeli government's long-term intentions are all still being debated, Lovatt said.