Indirect talks between Israel and the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the Egyptian city of Sharm el-Sheikh have led to an agreement on all points and mechanisms for implementing the first phase of the Gaza ceasefire plan, which already came into effect at 12:00 (9:00 GMT) yesterday afternoon (Friday).
Observers and political analysts consider this agreement to be a "temporary truce" and a "tactical pause" for both sides, imposed more by humanitarian and political necessities than as a final peace treaty or permanent settlement, especially after negotiators postponed the most contentious issues for the second phase.
Most observers assume that This agreement will hold up in the short term as long as it remains limited to the humanitarian sphere, but it is at risk of failure if sensitive issues are not addressed seriously.
The agreement aims to achieve a comprehensive end to the war, the release of detainees and prisoners on both sides, and the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza.
Some believe that the agreement between Israel and Hamas could be a "need-to-need" for both sides for many reasons.
Israel sees in the Trump plan an opportunity to achieve its goals in full, especially the release of hostages, the prevention of Hamas participation in the government, its disarmament, and the international administration of the Gaza Strip without Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Netanyahu also wants to reduce international criticism of himself; for him, the war has exhausted its goals and he has achieved everything he wanted, and he wants to turn to domestic political issues in Israel.
For Hamas, probably the biggest pressure comes from its main allies Qatar and Turkey through their approval of the Trump plan, and it no longer has any room for maneuver, especially since the recent period has shown the weakness of its military capabilities to resist the invasion of Gaza City. They realize that if this happens, only the central area will remain, and then Israel will destroy the rest of the Gaza Strip.
While others view the agreement between Israel and Hamas as “incomplete and unclear to what extent it will achieve strategic results“. It is “an agreement between countries that have been brought to a dead end by the conflict, with all the countries at a dead end“.
America is also in a difficult position because despite all the military, financial and political support for Israel, the battle has not been won and the United States now faces global consequences, even from its allies. Hamas is also in a difficult position due to the painful humanitarian situation in Gaza.
“The Netanyahu government is also in a difficult position. Despite its attempts to appear strong and victorious, Israel is deeply divided, has a depleted army, and a hostile world. The Arab countries are also in a difficult position in front of their peoples because of their inability to end the war. Each side wants to get out of its predicament, so a way out had to be found.“
But ultimately, this is an agreement that paves the way for peace again, especially with increasing international and regional pressure. It achieves the shedding of Palestinian blood, the end of the war, and the release of hostages and prisoners. It is an important milestone, but it is not enough for a comprehensive solution. It is an agreement imposed by humanitarian and political needs, not the result of a genuine conviction on the part of any of the parties to end the conflict.
“After nearly two years of devastating war, there is no longer place for the continuation of the open cycle of violence that has exhausted both sides and destroyed most of Gaza's infrastructure. The agreement therefore came in response to an urgent need for a ceasefire and relief of suffering, rather than the result of a shared political vision.“
“The current agreement focuses on urgent humanitarian issues such as the provision of aid, the exchange of prisoners and the cessation of military operations, but does not clearly address the future of the situation in Gaza or fundamental issues such as the disarmament of the resistance or reconstruction. It can therefore be described as a temporary truce or first phase, rather than a peace agreement or permanent settlement.“
It can be said that “the agreement represents a tactical break for both sides (Israel and Hamas) rather than a final or permanent agreement“.
“There are several major hurdles to overcome, including disarmament, reconstruction efforts, and the future of Hamas itself, which the plan explicitly excludes from governing, but there is no indication that it will voluntarily disband.“
This is therefore a fragile agreement, because the roots of the conflict still exist and there are deep disagreements on fundamental issues such as an independent Palestinian state, the status of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the future of Gaza, the role of Hamas, and disarmament. It can be considered an agreement intended to take a breather and open the door to diplomacy, rather than a final solution, since the joint efforts of American, Arab, and Turkish diplomacy and pressure from both sides led to this agreement.