Why Did Israel Agree to the Deal Now After Prolonged Stubbornness?

Israel launched a genocidal war on Gaza with multiple objectives, the most immediate being to impose defeat, submission, and surrender on Hamas and the broader Palestinian resistance in the Gaza Strip. Israel adopted shock-and-awe tactics, carpet bombing, forced displacement, and fire belts, employing methods that surpass its historical expertise in this conflict.

This war, marked by overt and announced genocide, aimed to eliminate any taboos. Israel’s machinery of destruction targeted all aspects of urban and civil life in Gaza, sparing neither facilities, people, stones, nor trees.

At the core of this unprecedented warfare, Israel sought to erase the issue of its prisoners held by Hamas and the Palestinian resistance. Through implicit and sometimes explicit statements, Israel conveyed that all sacrifices were necessary and acceptable in a war it described as existential. This narrative followed an extraordinary operation by Hamas that exposed the limitations of Israel, often masked by its propaganda of an invincible army and infallible intelligence services.

To cover up its intention to bury the prisoner issue, Israel publicly declared that the captives would be recovered through sheer military force, alongside the destruction and eradication of Hamas.

Objectives and Failures

The Israeli objective of imposing defeat and surrender on Hamas through hellfire was intended to be the first step toward a broader goal: the forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza. This aim was revealed in a document by the Israeli Ministry of Intelligence at the onset of the war. Medium- and short-term objectives included occupying half of Gaza, leveling its northern areas, and potentially reintroducing settlements. Other goals involved establishing military-protected buffer zones within Gaza or politically, socially, and security-wise reengineering the strip under the direct supervision of the Israeli army.

As the ceasefire was announced, aiming to nullify these objectives, Israel had already caused horrifying levels of death, destruction, and displacement, effectively transforming physical genocide into a continuous structure of suffering for Gazans and Palestinians at large.

The toll of human casualties, infrastructure devastation, and the resulting social and economic tragedies cannot be described as anything less than catastrophic. These costs represent a significant challenge for Palestinians, especially Hamas, over the next decade. Hamas, which led this struggle beginning with the “Al-Aqsa Flood” and culminating in the ceasefire, now faces the aftermath of a 15-month-long war and the challenges posed by the agreement to end it.

Despite the grim realities, Israel failed to achieve its announced strategic goals. The ceasefire agreement, effective January 19, 2025, reveals this failure, and its implications will resonate within Israel’s internal political landscape.

The Agreement’s Roots

The announced deal aligns fundamentally with the proposal Hamas agreed to on July 2, 2024, which itself was based on a framework presented in May of the same year. Changes between the earlier proposal and the current agreement lie in details and implementation mechanisms rather than principles or core content.

This continuity places Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu under scrutiny for all Israeli captives lost or killed since July 2024. Moreover, the steady loss of soldiers, particularly in Gaza’s northern areas, led Israeli and American circles to concede that Hamas cannot be eradicated. The agreement further reflects the resilience of Hamas’s military wing in defending areas targeted for total destruction.

Victory or Defeat?

The agreement’s implications go beyond simple victory or defeat in an ongoing and evolving struggle. While Israel inflicted enormous suffering on Palestinians, it could not erase the shame of October 7 or achieve its strategic objectives. The deal’s essence undermines Israel’s attempts to crush Hamas and reengineer Gaza, forcing it into a ceasefire negotiated with the movement it sought to eliminate.

Strategic goals, such as disheartening Palestinians from resistance through genocide, now face erosion. The ceasefire agreement demonstrates Israel’s retreat from its stated objectives and acceptance of a deal with Hamas.

Immediate Outcomes

The deal’s immediate outcomes favor Palestinians and Hamas. Israel was compelled to release prisoners sentenced to life, whom it had vowed to keep behind bars indefinitely. This marks only the second time in the conflict’s history—the first being the “Gilad Shalit” exchange—that Israel has broken its own prisoner-release standards, both under Netanyahu’s leadership.

This agreement signifies the collapse of key Israeli goals: eliminating Hamas, recovering captives through military force, or imposing surrender. If the ceasefire holds and leads to a stable second phase involving Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza and the completion of the prisoner exchange, additional strategic objectives will also crumble.

Fragility of the Agreement

While the agreement represents a significant Israeli retreat, its fragility remains evident. The exceptional nature of the war and its continuation post-agreement, coupled with Israel’s unpredictable behavior, mean its stability cannot be guaranteed. However, this preliminary deal sets the stage for greater Israeli withdrawals and internal divisions.

The ceasefire’s broader implications will fuel internal Israeli polarization. The war’s prolonged duration and failure to eradicate Hamas exacerbate accusations of Netanyahu’s failure. These accusations will pit traditional Zionist factions against Netanyahu’s coalition, dominated by Torah-based settler ideologies that sacrificed captives for their vision of “Greater Israel.”

Key Questions Moving Forward

Two critical questions remain:

1. 1. Why did Israel agree to the deal now after prolonged stubbornness, despite heavy U.S. support?

1. 1. What are the long-term ramifications of this war, should the agreement hold despite its fragility?

The answer to the first lies in changes within the White House, with Donald Trump’s administration reportedly pressuring Netanyahu. Coupled with Israeli society’s prioritization of prisoner returns after the war with Hezbollah, public opinion shifted toward ending the war at any cost. Meanwhile, Hamas’s resilience and adaptability under extreme conditions forced Israel’s hand.

As for the second, the war’s long-term consequences will unfold over years. The immediate impact includes the collapse of Israel’s ambitions for a swift Hamas defeat. Despite U.S.-backed power, Israel’s predictions of a quick Hamas collapse proved wrong. Instead, Hamas’s sustained resistance destabilized Israel’s war narrative and caused rising economic, human, and diplomatic losses.

The Legacy of Hamas’s Resistance

Hamas’s resilience prevented Israel from achieving a decisive victory and thwarted broader Zionist plans for the region. The resistance preserved Palestinians’ hopes for liberation and frustrated Israeli ambitions to impose their will unchallenged.

Despite the devastating toll on Gaza’s people, infrastructure, and economy, Hamas emerges as a steadfast force, engrained in the collective consciousness of Palestinians as a serious, dedicated movement that fought valiantly and decisively.

The war’s legacy—from the “Al-Aqsa Flood” to its conclusion—will shape the narratives of Palestinians and Israelis alike, leaving its mark on the region for generations to come.