Occupied Jerusalem- US President Donald Trump’s announcement that a ceasefire agreement had been reached between Israel and the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) sparked a wave of confusion in Tel Aviv, as it came from Washington before the Israeli government announced its official position, which revealed the extent of American pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of committing war crimes in Gaza.
Despite the reserved official welcome, a feeling of disappointment prevailed in Israeli political and military circles, given that the agreement ended the war without achieving any of its declared goals. Readings considered that the real result was that Tel Aviv fought the longest and most violent war in Gaza, but emerged from it politically weaker and more internationally isolated.
The analyzes also agreed that the Netanyahu government failed to achieve the strategic goal of eliminating Hamas or dismantling its military and political capacity, and that the occupation army achieved limited tactical achievements, such as destroying tunnels and weapons stores, but it did not succeed in breaking the movement’s organizational or popular structure.
Israel’s loss
According to observers’ descriptions, Hamas emerged from the war stronger politically, having succeeded in steadfastness despite the siege and destruction, and established itself as a force representing the Palestinian people and the resistance.
They also unanimously agreed that Tel Aviv lost the international battle, as it faced a shift in global public opinion, with escalating European criticism and growing popular sympathy for the Palestinians to levels unprecedented since the Nakba War in 1948.
Eyal Zisser, a researcher in the history of the Middle East from Tel Aviv University, wrote that “what the Palestinian Authority could not achieve in 20 years, Hamas succeeded in achieving during two years of war,” and that talk of a two-state solution has returned strongly to the American and international agenda.
Zisser believes in an article in the newspaper “Israel Hayom” that these developments limit Israel’s ability to impose a unilateral settlement or resume the war, because any new escalation will be seen as undermining a possible political path towards establishing a Palestinian state. He explained that the Trump plan represents a new road map towards a goal that was not explicitly announced, but is present between its lines, which is the establishment of a Palestinian state.
He believes that the plan is distinguished from the Oslo Accords not only by its political content, but also by the way it was drafted, as it came as an American-Israeli dictate imposing a new reality under the slogan of “economic peace” and “regional normalization,” in exchange for the agreement that was based on direct negotiation and mutual trust between the two parties.
Zisser warned that Israeli approval of the plan carries long-term strategic risks, because it takes the political initiative out of the hands of Tel Aviv itself, and makes the fate of the settlement dependent on the will of the international and Arab parties.
complex stage
For his part, Amir Bar Shalom, a military analyst on the Zaman Yisrael website, believes that Tel Aviv is approaching a new and complex stage in its management of the Gaza Strip, the title of which is “regional control” and not “military hegemony.”
He explains that while the agreement opens the door to the return of Israeli detainees, in return, it restricts Israel’s military and political freedom, and imposes on it a new regional equation that redraws the balance of power after two years of war.
It is believed that America will not give new political cover to the Netanyahu government, and the international community will demand concrete political steps towards a two-state solution, while the Israeli interior is suffering from a sharp division and a crisis of confidence in the government. He warned that any return to military operations may spark a confrontation with Washington and deepen Tel Aviv’s international isolation.
According to Bar Shalom, Gaza is moving towards a new structure of managing the regional truce, as the Arab countries, led by Egypt, seek to restrict Israel’s hand and prevent it from resuming military operations. He believes that what he calls the “yellow line” drawn by Trump in his political map of Gaza represents the new limits of Tel Aviv’s ability to maneuver.

This line corresponds to what the occupation army calls “gray zones”, which are areas of limited intelligence and security influence that Israel seeks to maintain within the Gaza Strip without returning to occupation or direct administration. But this equation – according to Bar Shalom – is fragile and vulnerable to being shaken, as it depends on the continuation of American-Egyptian coordination, and on Hamas and the Arab countries’ acceptance of the new deterrence equation.
He concludes that Israel – despite the return of the detainees – did not achieve a decisive victory, but rather entered a stage of strategic restriction in which the limits of its movement are drawn from the outside more than they are drawn from within its security institutions. He believes that the military establishment seeks to maintain a margin of deterrence that allows it to act against any violation, while being careful not to cross the “yellow lines” set by Trump.
Regarding the day after the war, Bar Shalom believes that it is not the end of the war, but rather the beginning of a new regional order that Washington and Cairo are participating in formulating, while Israel faces the test of maintaining its security and deterrence in an equation over which it no longer has full control.
Hamas gains
As for the political analyst on Israeli Channel 12, Yaron Avraham, he believes that the agreement represents an achievement of the goal of returning all 48 detainees at once, an achievement presented by Netanyahu as a “humanitarian and security victory” that restores some lost confidence among the Israeli public after two years of war.
He says that the government succeeded in achieving a balance between recovering prisoners and maintaining deterrence, while continuing security control over the borders and crossings without retreat on the ground. The agreement also strengthened the alliance with the Trump administration, and restored some of its international standing to Israel after the war, in light of Washington’s restoration of its leadership role in the region.
On the other hand, Avraham does not hide that Hamas has achieved tangible gains, as it succeeded in imposing the mass release of Palestinian prisoners and obtaining large-scale humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, along with clear international guarantees to stop the war.
He pointed out that the agreement did not include its disarmament or specify a timetable for that, which means that the movement maintained its political and military position in the Gaza Strip, and succeeded in postponing any strategic entitlement that might weaken its structure.
He concludes that the agreement was the result of a complex equation of mutual concessions, and for Israel, it is a humanitarian and diplomatic achievement that brings back all the detainees and gives the government a political outlet. As for Hamas, it is a political and moral victory that strengthens its popular presence in the Palestinian street, and establishes it as a player that cannot be ignored in any future settlement.
Between a “humanitarian victory” in Tel Aviv and a “symbolic victory” in Gaza, Avraham believes that the final result of the agreement establishes a new reality in the region. Israel has recovered its detainees, but has not regained its full deterrence, while Hamas has succeeded in consolidating its political and military survival amid implicit international recognition of its role in the next phase.