Two years after the trauma of the October 7 attacks, Israelis woke to news of an agreement promising the return of all remaining hostages within 72 hours — the first tangible step toward ending Israel’s longest war. While the nation holds its breath in cautious optimism, this time the details appear grounded more in political realism than in the recurring slogans of the past, such as the empty calls for immediate Palestinian statehood.
The breakthrough reflects a mix of diplomatic pressure and battlefield momentum. President Trump’s determination to impose a resolution — beginning with the hostages — drove the deal forward. He both embraced and pressured Prime Minister Netanyahu to accept its difficult terms, while exerting equal force on Qatar and Turkey, the principal enablers and patrons of Hamas. Despite the media’s portrayal of these capitals as “mediators,” their role was largely symbolic. Egypt, meanwhile, served primarily as a convenient venue for negotiations.
Crucially, Israel’s recent military operations in Gaza City helped set the stage. By eroding Hamas’s physical and psychological defenses, the IDF created conditions that compelled the group to trade its last bargaining chip — the hostages. Simultaneously, Israel’s campaign to neutralize Hamas’s external support network — from Iran and Hezbollah to Assad’s regime and affiliated terror cells in the West Bank — reduced Hamas’s ability to sustain the fight. The targeted strike on Hamas leadership in Qatar, though unsuccessful in eliminating them, reinforced Israel’s message of deterrence.
That such an outcome could even be contemplated would have seemed impossible in the early weeks of the war. The deal represents a significant strategic and psychological victory for Israel, underscoring both national resilience and the determination of its people to survive against all odds.
Yet exhaustion is palpable. After two years of war, Israelis yearn for relief, and this fatigue strengthened Trump’s hand in brokering an agreement that includes painful compromises. The release of convicted terrorists — some responsible for mass murder — will reopen old wounds. History suggests that many will resume violent activity, leaving Israel’s security forces to confront familiar threats.
Attention now shifts to what comes next. Trump’s 20-point post-war plan, announced in late September, outlines a temporary governance framework for Gaza, theoretically paving the way toward Palestinian self-rule devoid of terror and incitement. But the specifics are murky — especially regarding Hamas’s disarmament and the transition of power.
For disarmament to succeed, Hamas’s remaining tunnels and hidden rocket caches must be eliminated. Few trust any international force to carry out such a mission; the failure of UNIFIL to contain Hezbollah in Lebanon stands as a stark warning.
The question of Gaza’s reconstruction is equally fraught. Billions in humanitarian aid are expected, but Israel and the U.S. insist that any effort avoid the cycle that has repeated for decades — Hamas attacks, Israeli retaliation, ceasefire, unsupervised rebuilding, and renewed rearmament. Hamas and its allies will undoubtedly push for UNRWA and sympathetic NGOs to control the flow of funds, despite deep Israeli mistrust rooted in these organizations’ long history of bias and complicity.
A different approach, modeled on the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s limited but disciplined framework, may offer a more credible alternative — one that Hamas has sought to undermine precisely because it bypasses its control.
The coming months will determine whether this deal marks a true turning point or simply the prelude to another cycle of war. For now, Israel watches, waits, and hopes that this fragile agreement holds long enough to bring its people home — and perhaps, one day, a more lasting peace.