1/ So, What’s Happening in Gaza?
How did we reach this agreement? And where does this ceasefire leave both sides?
Beyond the competing narratives and politically motivated spins, a complex and layered set of factors led to this ceasefire - and possibly, the end of the war.
Israel had been pressing Hamas militarily, targeting what remains its most important asset: Gaza City. Within Gaza, pressure was mounting as well - from the Palestinian population and from Hamas operatives urging their leadership to end the war. Netanyahu was constantly discussing the 'break point' of Hamas, promissing a 'total victory'. Yet at the same time, as I've written here several times, the scenario was always of Beirut 1982, when Israel led to the exile of the PLO and Arafat following a short siege.
However, Israel was facing growing international pressure and isolation, which has reached emergency proportations. The United States and President Trump aspired to bring the conflict to a close by the end of 2025. The President himself has said as much, telling Netanyahu, in essence, that Israel cannot fight with the entire world (lookd for his interview to Fox News, right after the agreement was reached).
Washington managed to enlist Qatar and Turkey to help pressure Hamas; both of these countries got substantial returns for that. This left Hamas with no real option, with all its regional allies demanding it compromised on a cease fire.
The failed Israeli assassination attempt in Qatar became a catalyst - an opportunity to turn crisis into leverage and push the process forward.
There’s another dynamic often overlooked: wars have a way of maturing. They reach a point of exhaustion, where both sides lose public support at home and recognize the need to pause, if not end, the fighting. This war, too, had reached that point. No doubt, Israel had the upper hand.
Now: What Was Achieved - and Why It Matters
How did we reach this agreement? And where does this ceasefire leave both sides?
Beyond the competing narratives and politically motivated spins, a complex and layered set of factors led to this ceasefire - and possibly, the end of the war.
Israel had been pressing Hamas militarily, targeting what remains its most important asset: Gaza City. Within Gaza, pressure was mounting as well - from the Palestinian population and from Hamas operatives urging their leadership to end the war. Netanyahu was constantly discussing the 'break point' of Hamas, promissing a 'total victory'. Yet at the same time, as I've written here several times, the scenario was always of Beirut 1982, when Israel led to the exile of the PLO and Arafat following a short siege.
However, Israel was facing growing international pressure and isolation, which has reached emergency proportations. The United States and President Trump aspired to bring the conflict to a close by the end of 2025. The President himself has said as much, telling Netanyahu, in essence, that Israel cannot fight with the entire world (lookd for his interview to Fox News, right after the agreement was reached).
Washington managed to enlist Qatar and Turkey to help pressure Hamas; both of these countries got substantial returns for that. This left Hamas with no real option, with all its regional allies demanding it compromised on a cease fire.
The failed Israeli assassination attempt in Qatar became a catalyst - an opportunity to turn crisis into leverage and push the process forward.
There’s another dynamic often overlooked: wars have a way of maturing. They reach a point of exhaustion, where both sides lose public support at home and recognize the need to pause, if not end, the fighting. This war, too, had reached that point. No doubt, Israel had the upper hand.
Now: What Was Achieved - and Why It Matters
2/ Let’s start with what this agreement actually achieved.
It’s inaccurate to portray this as a master plan conceived in Jerusalem and implemented through Washington’s good offices. It’s equally wrong to suggest that the same deal was always on the table and could have been reached a year ago.
Again. Two flawed narratives are circulating.
The first is that this was always Israel’s plan — a carefully choreographed “master strategy” by Netanyahu and Dermer. That is false. Israel was seeking a breaking point for Hamas, not a negotiated settlement.
The second is that this deal was always available, that it could have been secured long ago. Also false. Time, pressure, and changing realities made this agreement possible now — not before.
Here’s what’s different.
The first and perhaps most significant achievement is that all hostages were released alive and at once - rather than in a drawn-out, phased process - while the IDF still maintains control over much of the Gaza Strip.
The second achievement lies in the regional and U.S. endorsement of the principle that Hamas will be disarmed. For now, this commitment is theoretical, but it remains a valuable precedent for the future.
What’s the difference between this agreement and what might have been possible 15 or 16 months ago? Then, Hamas insisted it would only release hostages after Israel withdrew entirely from Gaza - to the last inch of Gazan territory. That would have stripped Israel of all leverage. It also rejected any discussion of disarmament, even in principle.
Today, Israel retains a military presence inside Gaza, and Hamas -at least on paper - has agreed to the notion of disarmament. That’s the delta between then and now.
But there is also a cost. The price paid over those 15 months- in lives lost, in Israel's legitimacy eroded to a point never seen before, in the devastation wrought - will be debated for years. Was it worth it? That question remains open. But This is, with no doubt, better than past agreements pitched to Israel.
As to the previous agreements, the Biden administration has told Netanyahu’s government that Israel retains the right to resume military action if Hamas violates the agreement. “Your right to self-defense will not be infringed,” officials said a clear assurance that the ceasefire does not bind Israel’s hands indefinitely.
We need to mark a clear distinction between the principle of the 'hostages freed first' and phase 2 of the deal. That phase has been in the works since the Biden administration. Much of this was done by the UAE with the two respective administrations. In all of the drafts, Hamas does not rule Gaza, there's a sort of a Palestinian-rule that isn't exactly the PA, and a measure of de-militarization.
It’s inaccurate to portray this as a master plan conceived in Jerusalem and implemented through Washington’s good offices. It’s equally wrong to suggest that the same deal was always on the table and could have been reached a year ago.
Again. Two flawed narratives are circulating.
The first is that this was always Israel’s plan — a carefully choreographed “master strategy” by Netanyahu and Dermer. That is false. Israel was seeking a breaking point for Hamas, not a negotiated settlement.
The second is that this deal was always available, that it could have been secured long ago. Also false. Time, pressure, and changing realities made this agreement possible now — not before.
Here’s what’s different.
The first and perhaps most significant achievement is that all hostages were released alive and at once - rather than in a drawn-out, phased process - while the IDF still maintains control over much of the Gaza Strip.
The second achievement lies in the regional and U.S. endorsement of the principle that Hamas will be disarmed. For now, this commitment is theoretical, but it remains a valuable precedent for the future.
What’s the difference between this agreement and what might have been possible 15 or 16 months ago? Then, Hamas insisted it would only release hostages after Israel withdrew entirely from Gaza - to the last inch of Gazan territory. That would have stripped Israel of all leverage. It also rejected any discussion of disarmament, even in principle.
Today, Israel retains a military presence inside Gaza, and Hamas -at least on paper - has agreed to the notion of disarmament. That’s the delta between then and now.
But there is also a cost. The price paid over those 15 months- in lives lost, in Israel's legitimacy eroded to a point never seen before, in the devastation wrought - will be debated for years. Was it worth it? That question remains open. But This is, with no doubt, better than past agreements pitched to Israel.
As to the previous agreements, the Biden administration has told Netanyahu’s government that Israel retains the right to resume military action if Hamas violates the agreement. “Your right to self-defense will not be infringed,” officials said a clear assurance that the ceasefire does not bind Israel’s hands indefinitely.
We need to mark a clear distinction between the principle of the 'hostages freed first' and phase 2 of the deal. That phase has been in the works since the Biden administration. Much of this was done by the UAE with the two respective administrations. In all of the drafts, Hamas does not rule Gaza, there's a sort of a Palestinian-rule that isn't exactly the PA, and a measure of de-militarization.
3/ Where Things Stand Now
Israel has withdrawn to what’s known as the “yellow line.” It now controls roughly half of Gaza, including all of Rafah and most of Khan Yunis - areas that once housed over a million residents. That’s a severe blow to Hamas.
Under the agreement, Hamas must now return the bodies of hostages - people murdered on October 7 or who died in captivity. Israeli intelligence believes Hamas can deliver many more remains immediately. Yet Hamas appears to be stalling, exploiting Israel’s acute sensitivity around the hostages’ families.
Meanwhile, under Trump’s 21-point plan, Israel is expected to gradually hand over territory - even if Hamas fails to meet its obligations- to an international security force. Who will make up this force remains unclear. Talks currently involve Egypt, Turkey, possibly Indonesia, Azerbaijan, and others. One former senior U.S. official warned that such a composition should concern Israel, given the record of similar peacekeeping missions.
A core issue remains Hamas’s disarmament. No one seriously expects full disarmament - not of rifles, not of regular arms. The discussion now focuses on heavier weapons: rockets, mortars, explosive labs, and offensive tunnels. Hamas doesn’t need more than light weapons to control Gaza.
Another major gap is the need to establish the promised technocratic government in Gaza, supported by a non-Hamas Palestinian force and backed by the ISF. In the absence of both, Hamas continues to rule.
This vacuum deters regional investment. Neither the UAE nor Saudi Arabia will pour billions into reconstruction while Hamas is poised to rebuild and rearm. These governments also fear empowering a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which remains popular in their own societies.
That’s why Vice President J.D. Vance and Jared Kushner are now traveling to the region - to prevent the agreement from collapsing and to work through its details. And everything, now, depends on those details.
The key challenges now are fourfold: ensuring Hamas actually returns the bodies of Israeli hostages, creating a functioning Palestinian technocratic government to replace Hamas’s rule, assembling and deploying an effective international security force, and managing a continued, orderly withdrawal of IDF forces.
Yet no one in the region expects any force other than the IDF to be capable of confronting Hamas militarily; if a different actor were to successfully challenge Hamas, it would come as a genuine and welcome surprise.
The Deeper Lessons:
Israel has withdrawn to what’s known as the “yellow line.” It now controls roughly half of Gaza, including all of Rafah and most of Khan Yunis - areas that once housed over a million residents. That’s a severe blow to Hamas.
Under the agreement, Hamas must now return the bodies of hostages - people murdered on October 7 or who died in captivity. Israeli intelligence believes Hamas can deliver many more remains immediately. Yet Hamas appears to be stalling, exploiting Israel’s acute sensitivity around the hostages’ families.
Meanwhile, under Trump’s 21-point plan, Israel is expected to gradually hand over territory - even if Hamas fails to meet its obligations- to an international security force. Who will make up this force remains unclear. Talks currently involve Egypt, Turkey, possibly Indonesia, Azerbaijan, and others. One former senior U.S. official warned that such a composition should concern Israel, given the record of similar peacekeeping missions.
A core issue remains Hamas’s disarmament. No one seriously expects full disarmament - not of rifles, not of regular arms. The discussion now focuses on heavier weapons: rockets, mortars, explosive labs, and offensive tunnels. Hamas doesn’t need more than light weapons to control Gaza.
Another major gap is the need to establish the promised technocratic government in Gaza, supported by a non-Hamas Palestinian force and backed by the ISF. In the absence of both, Hamas continues to rule.
This vacuum deters regional investment. Neither the UAE nor Saudi Arabia will pour billions into reconstruction while Hamas is poised to rebuild and rearm. These governments also fear empowering a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which remains popular in their own societies.
That’s why Vice President J.D. Vance and Jared Kushner are now traveling to the region - to prevent the agreement from collapsing and to work through its details. And everything, now, depends on those details.
The key challenges now are fourfold: ensuring Hamas actually returns the bodies of Israeli hostages, creating a functioning Palestinian technocratic government to replace Hamas’s rule, assembling and deploying an effective international security force, and managing a continued, orderly withdrawal of IDF forces.
Yet no one in the region expects any force other than the IDF to be capable of confronting Hamas militarily; if a different actor were to successfully challenge Hamas, it would come as a genuine and welcome surprise.
The Deeper Lessons:
4/ For months, critics argued that Israel’s campaign wasn’t about hostages at all - that it was about expulsion, settlements, annexation. Those accusations, though fueled by some Israeli politicians’ rhetoric, have proven false.
Once Israel secured the promise of the hostages’ release, its legitimacy to continue fighting evaporated- both internationally and domestically. The return of the hostages is seen as a profound national achievement, a testament to Israel’s military and its civilian resilience.
Meanwhile, Hamas’s own behavior has confirmed what many already knew. It has turned its guns inward, rounding up opponents, torturing them in makeshift detention centers - some inside hospitals - and reasserting control through terror.
Hamas remains a radical, genocidal organization. If it stays armed, even with 'just' rifles, it will continue shaping Gaza’s future - and not for the better. It is, in truth, the greatest threat to Palestinian self-determination, to regional stability, and to the possibility of a decent life for Palestinians themselves.
If the international community fails to grasp this - if it allows Hamas to continue to regroup- then this ceasefire may collapse far sooner than anyone imagines.
President Trump’s clarity and willingness to stay engaged have brought the parties to this point. It should not be taken for granted. His public insistence that Hamas abide by its commitments, and that the ceasefire hold, stands in stark contrast to the wishful international diplomacy of previous decades.
Unlike his predecessors, Trump is not willing a peace process into being. He is forcing one into shape. And if he stays that course, it could lead to an actual paradigm shift in the region. However, in the Middle East, nothing comes easy - not war, not peace, and not even a ceasefire.
Once Israel secured the promise of the hostages’ release, its legitimacy to continue fighting evaporated- both internationally and domestically. The return of the hostages is seen as a profound national achievement, a testament to Israel’s military and its civilian resilience.
Meanwhile, Hamas’s own behavior has confirmed what many already knew. It has turned its guns inward, rounding up opponents, torturing them in makeshift detention centers - some inside hospitals - and reasserting control through terror.
Hamas remains a radical, genocidal organization. If it stays armed, even with 'just' rifles, it will continue shaping Gaza’s future - and not for the better. It is, in truth, the greatest threat to Palestinian self-determination, to regional stability, and to the possibility of a decent life for Palestinians themselves.
If the international community fails to grasp this - if it allows Hamas to continue to regroup- then this ceasefire may collapse far sooner than anyone imagines.
President Trump’s clarity and willingness to stay engaged have brought the parties to this point. It should not be taken for granted. His public insistence that Hamas abide by its commitments, and that the ceasefire hold, stands in stark contrast to the wishful international diplomacy of previous decades.
Unlike his predecessors, Trump is not willing a peace process into being. He is forcing one into shape. And if he stays that course, it could lead to an actual paradigm shift in the region. However, in the Middle East, nothing comes easy - not war, not peace, and not even a ceasefire.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
