The Israel-Hamas agreement defines an ‘uneasy peace’

After fifteen grueling months of war and negotiation, a ceasefire and hostage release agreement between Israel and Hamas has been brokered, following intensive diplomatic activity led by the United States, Qatar and Egypt. Announced this afternoon, the deal marks a critical yet deeply contentious milestone in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While it offers hope for the families of hostages, it also raises serious questions about the long-term implications for both sides and the precarious nature of such agreements.

The deal resembles that initially outlined in May 2024 by President Biden and endorsed by the UN Security Council. It includes the release of thirty-three hostages held by Hamas, primarily women, children, and elderly individuals. Over a period of forty-two days, hostages will be returned in staggered phases, with three or four released each week. In return, Israel has agreed to release around 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, including approximately 200 described as having “blood on their hands.” These individuals will be relocated to Gaza, Qatar or Turkey, avoiding the release of Hamas’s elite fighters for now.

Humanitarian aid will also increase significantly, with 600 trucks of supplies entering Gaza daily. Displaced Palestinians will be allowed to return to northern Gaza under certain inspection restrictions.

This is a deal born of reluctance and pressure. Hamas had long maintained that it would not agree to any ceasefire or hostage deal without securing four central demands: a complete ceasefire, total IDF withdrawal from Gaza, unrestricted return of displaced Palestinians and the start of Gaza’s reconstruction. However, the reality of the agreement paints a starkly different picture.

Hamas conceded on three of its four key demands. Israel retains the option to resume fighting after forty-two days, leaving Hamas without the definitive end to the conflict it had sought. The IDF has not fully withdrawn from Gaza, and displaced Palestinians face inspection requirements upon return. Reconstruction will begin, but under constrained circumstances.

These concessions reflect the immense pressure Hamas faced from Israel’s military operations, which systematically targeted its infrastructure and leadership. After more than a year of war, Hamas’s ability to dictate terms was significantly diminished, despite its efforts to frame the deal as a victory.

However, each player is keen to present the deal as their victory: President Biden pointed out that he had outlined these terms back in May 2024, providing the blueprint for this deal and hailing the agreement as a triumph of American influence. “This is the result of dogged and painstaking diplomacy,” he said, focusing on the importance of humanitarian relief and the reunification of hostages with their families. Yet Blinken only recently admitted that the perception of daylight between the US and Israel had repeatedly emboldened Hamas during earlier negotiations, making negotiations fail repeatedly.

Donald Trump, too, was quick to claim credit, portraying the deal as a product of his leadership and intensified pressure since his election victory. Commenting online, he hailed the agreement as “EPIC,” highlighting his administration’s influence on the negotiations even before he returns to office. Certainly, his threats have helped focus minds over recent weeks.

In Israel, reactions to the agreement are deeply divided. On one hand, the return of hostages, particularly women and children, is cause for celebration. The Israeli government and families of hostages have emphasized the moral imperative of bringing loved ones home, even as some hostages are confirmed dead.

On the other hand, critics, especially on the political right, argue that the deal represents a surrender. By releasing high-value Palestinian prisoners, including those convicted of deadly attacks, Israel risks emboldening Hamas and other terror organizations in the future. Such deals undoubtedly set a dangerous precedent, incentivizing future hostage-taking as a viable strategy.

Both Israel and Hamas may try to frame this agreement as a victory, but neither claim is entirely convincing

Adding to the controversy is the sight of Hamas operatives re-emerging in Gaza, openly celebrating the deal. After months of operating in civilian clothing, their return to military uniforms and public displays of bravado highlights the unresolved threat they pose, albeit severely depleted in ability. While Hamas has suffered significant losses, its ability to regroup and rebuild remains a lingering concern.

This agreement underscores the profound moral and strategic dilemmas inherent in hostage negotiations. On one side is the undeniable human cost — children, parents, and grandparents held captive, their families living in torment. The return of even a single hostage represents an extraordinary relief and triumph for these families.

On the other side is the sobering reality that such deals carry significant risks. By granting concessions to Hamas, Israel strengthens the perception that terrorism yields tangible rewards, potentially fueling further violence. The delicate balance between safeguarding national security and protecting individual lives remains at the heart of this dilemma.

Both Israel and Hamas may try to frame this agreement as a victory, but neither claim is entirely convincing. Hamas has been forced to abandon key demands, and its celebrations ring hollow given the heavy toll it has endured. Israel, while achieving the release of hostages, faces ongoing questions about its strategy in Gaza and the future risks posed by Hamas.

The broader implications of this deal remain uncertain. Will it pave the way for further negotiations and a lasting ceasefire, or merely serve as a temporary pause before the war resumes? Can Israel leverage this moment to secure its long-term security, or will Hamas regroup and reignite the conflict?

For now, despite the relief that some of those abducted are finally being returned, the shadow of uncertainty looms large. With Trump set to take office and the entire region upended by months of war, what lies ahead in this fractured and fragile region remains unknown.