Analysis: Examining the Compromises: What Each Side Gave Up to Seal the Gaza Hostage Deal
The war that dragged on for over two years has now reached what may be its closing chapter, and not in the way either side originally envisioned. If the ceasefire agreement holds, the key to its success lies in both Israel and Hamas accepting concessions they had firmly rejected in earlier negotiations, coupled with carefully arranged sequencing of sensitive military and political issues.
In summer 2024 and again in early 2025, similar talks seemed close to success but collapsed over irreconcilable demands. This time, the involvement of Qatar, Turkey, and US President Donald Trump dramatically shifted the calculus, pressing both parties into compromises they had resisted until now.
One of Israel’s most surprising moves came quietly: the guns fell silent on Shabbos. Without having received a single hostage back or a concrete timetable, Israel simply stopped its strikes. For five days, Hamas enjoyed quiet skies while Jerusalem waited on promises of a deal. If hostages are returned on Monday, that will mean nine days in which Israel held its fire before gaining anything tangible—something Prime Minister Netanyahu had repeatedly vowed he would never do. Yet, under Trump’s directive, that red line was crossed.
Hamas’s most significant sacrifice came in the realm it least wanted to yield: the hostages. For months, Hamas had insisted on retaining some captives as bargaining chips to protect its leaders or force a total Israeli withdrawal. But this round, under the combined pressure of Doha, Ankara, Cairo, and the looming threat of unending Israeli assaults backed by Trump, Hamas agreed to return every living hostage—and even the bodies—at once. In doing so, the group relinquished its most powerful leverage, the card that set it apart from other Iranian-backed groups.
The fate of Hamas’s leadership, once one of the most hotly debated issues, looks less dramatic now. Israel initially spoke of expulsion. In the end, most of the men behind October 7 were killed: Deif in July 2024, Yahya Sinwar that October, and Mohammed Sinwar in May. Alongside them fell brigade chiefs, battalion commanders, and senior operatives like Marwan Issa and Ismail Haniyeh. What’s left are only a handful—such as Izz al-Din Haddad and Raed Saad—still breathing in Gaza. They may stay, at least for now, making this chapter less a concession and more a reality shaped by the battlefield.
Israel’s largest strategic retreat lies in its acceptance that Hamas will not be fully disarmed. Netanyahu once pledged “annihilation,” later moderating to “disarmament.” Neither has been realized. Today, Hamas has no functioning army—its 24 battalions were dismantled long ago—but it does maintain scattered cells, a few thousand hardened fighters, and a large sympathetic base. These remnants have pulled off small raids and token rocket fire. They cannot mount another mass invasion, but the danger of regrouping is real. For Israel, ending the war before eliminating every last weapon is a gamble.
On Hamas’s side, the long-term concession is allowing Israel to keep a presence in Gaza even after the ceasefire. In earlier talks, the group insisted on a total withdrawal before releasing hostages. Now, with the hostages given up first, Israel retains leverage and will likely remain inside some form of security buffer. The size of that buffer is still undefined—anything from one kilometer to over three in depth. Even the Philadelphi Corridor remains unresolved. Yet the principle is clear: Hamas has conceded that Israel won’t be gone entirely.
Questions loom over what happens once international mechanisms take over. Will the IDF be free to conduct pinpoint raids or drone strikes, as it does in Lebanon or the West Bank, or will it be bound by international oversight under a new security force? What happens if Hamas rebuilds cells faster than the new Gaza International Transitional Authority—or the ISF—can contain them? Will Israel be allowed to step in, unlike in 2007 when Hamas routed Fatah and the US urged Israel to stand aside?
And then there is the political puzzle. The deal on paper names GITA, but in practice, the struggle over governance will be fierce. Can 700,000 Gazans with tribal or ideological ties to Hamas be persuaded to back away from it? Will reconstruction fatigue push them back into Hamas’s arms? Can outside powers, including moderate Arab states, the US, and Israel, deliver a different reality in a land devastated by war?
Diplomatic rewards remain uncertain. Normalization with Saudi Arabia was once floated as part of a grand bargain. That opportunity might have passed—or it could resurface if the region sees this as a genuine turning point.
Historians will debate whether this ending could have come sooner. Perhaps in mid-2024 or early 2025, similar terms were already within reach. Critics will argue Netanyahu prolonged the fighting to protect his coalition; his defenders will counter that earlier deals might have left hostages in Hamas’s hands or cost Israel its security buffer. With the Hamas leaders of those earlier periods now dead, the answer may never be fully known.
What is clear is that the endgame looks nothing like the scenarios once imagined. Hamas gave up its hostages without total Israeli withdrawal. Israel laid down arms temporarily before the deal was signed. Most Hamas leaders were killed rather than expelled. And both sides now face an uncertain tomorrow, shaped as much by what they surrendered as by what they managed to hold onto.
{Matzav.com}