A ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is poised to take effect within 24 hours of cabinet approval in Jerusalem, a development that has already sparked cautious celebrations in Gaza and among hostage families in Israel.
Scheduled meetings of Israel’s cabinet and security cabinet from 15:00 BST on Thursday are expected to formalise the agreement, which was initially signed earlier today in Egypt under intense diplomatic mediation.
While the announcement carries the trappings of a humanitarian breakthrough — hostages to be returned, prisoners released, aid convoys entering Gaza — the underlying political calculations reveal a far more tactical arrangement than a genuine stride toward peace.
Both Israel and Hamas are using the ceasefire as a means to consolidate power, manage domestic pressures, and secure strategic leverage.
For Israel, the ceasefire offers a momentary reprieve after weeks of military operations that, while tactically effective in degrading Hamas infrastructure, have drawn international criticism and strained the government’s political capital. Prime Minister Netanyahu faces mounting pressure over security management and domestic unrest, and the promise of returning hostages within 72 hours allows him to showcase decisive action while deflecting criticism of the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
The troop withdrawal from parts of Gaza is similarly calculated. Far from a full retreat, the phased pullback allows the Israeli Defence Forces to retain operational flexibility, ensuring that any violation of the ceasefire can be met with rapid and overwhelming force. In political terms, the ceasefire provides a narrative of responsiveness and prudence, enabling the government to project competence without conceding strategic advantage.
Hamas Seizes Diplomatic Leverage
Hamas, for its part, treats the ceasefire as an opportunity to strengthen its political position both locally and internationally. By agreeing to the hostage release, the group presents itself as a negotiator capable of exerting influence, not merely a militant organisation. At the same time, the return of Palestinian prisoners serves to reinforce Hamas’s standing within Gaza and across the Palestinian territories, contrasting its authority with that of the increasingly marginalised Palestinian Authority.
The influx of aid, promised as part of the deal, further bolsters Hamas politically. Control over the distribution of food, medicine, and fuel allows the organisation to reinforce loyalty among Gaza’s population, while simultaneously managing the optics of civilian suffering to its strategic advantage.
Egypt’s mediation has once again proven decisive, reflecting Cairo’s long-standing role as the principal broker between Israel and Hamas. The Egyptian intelligence apparatus has navigated both sides’ demands to extract a first-phase agreement, exploiting exhaustion and the urgency of humanitarian need to secure concessions from both parties.
President Trump’s involvement adds another layer of strategic signalling. While Washington cannot enforce compliance on the ground, its endorsement lends legitimacy to the deal and increases pressure on both sides to adhere to the initial terms. For Israel, the U.S. backing strengthens diplomatic cover; for Hamas, American attention enhances the perception of legitimacy in the eyes of regional actors.
The arrangement’s emotional components — hostage releases and prisoner repatriation — also carry deliberate political weight. Hostage returns provide the Israeli government with tangible proof of negotiation success, a domestic morale boost, and a temporary distraction from broader criticisms of military operations. Meanwhile, the release of Palestinian prisoners solidifies Hamas’s image as a defender of Palestinian rights, translating symbolic gains into concrete political capital.
The planned entry of hundreds of aid trucks per day represents the most immediate benefit of the ceasefire, yet even here strategic calculations loom. Both Israel and Hamas are acutely aware that controlling aid distribution shapes narratives of competence, legitimacy, and influence. Ensuring supplies reach key population centres without strengthening adversarial factions is a high-stakes exercise in political management rather than pure humanitarian altruism.
A Ceasefire on a Knife-Edge
Despite the apparent triumph of diplomacy, the ceasefire’s longevity is far from assured. Implementation — from prisoner exchanges to aid delivery to troop movements — demands precise coordination, and any misstep could reignite conflict. Historical precedents in Gaza show that ceasefires, however well-publicised, often unravel under pressure from militants, security incidents, or political opportunism.
For now, the ceasefire signals a tactical pause: a momentary alignment of interests rather than a genuine reconciliation. Both sides are approaching the truce with the same calculating pragmatism that has defined previous conflicts, balancing immediate political gains against long-term uncertainty.
Ultimately, the Gaza ceasefire reflects strategy over reconciliation. It is a carefully choreographed interlude in a protracted struggle, offering temporary relief for civilians while allowing Israel and Hamas to pursue domestic and international objectives. The challenge will be whether the momentary alignment of interests can evolve into something more enduring — or whether it will dissolve under the weight of entrenched hostilities.
Click here for more News & Current Affairs at EU Today
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
