For a fleeting moment, the headlines suggest hope. Israel and Hamas have agreed to the first phase of a U.S.-brokered peace plan: a ceasefire, a prisoner–hostage exchange, and the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza.

President Donald Trump, whose administration orchestrated the deal alongside Egyptian mediators, has hailed it as a breakthrough. Israel’s cabinet is expected to give its formal approval this afternoon; if it does, guns may fall silent within hours.

Yet beneath the celebratory announcements lies a far more uncomfortable question: will this ceasefire hold, or is it merely a temporary respite before the next confrontation between Israel, the democratic world, and Islamist forces determined to challenge it?

For Israel, the moment is politically and emotionally charged. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called it “a great day for Israel.” The release of remaining hostages is both a humanitarian imperative and a political necessity after months of national anguish. Yet the agreement carries risks within his fragile coalition. Hardline elements view any concessions to Hamas — particularly the release of Palestinian prisoners — as a strategic error. They argue, with historical precedent, that truces with Hamas are not steps toward lasting peace but intervals between wars.

Hamas, meanwhile, has confirmed its acceptance of the deal but has yet to receive the final list of Palestinian prisoners to be released. This uncertainty is far from trivial. Past agreements have faltered over precisely such details. Gaza’s infrastructure has been devastated by months of fighting, and its population faces acute shortages. A temporary ceasefire provides breathing space, both politically and militarily, allowing Hamas to consolidate its position while presenting itself as a responsible negotiating actor to the world.

History offers a cautionary tale. Ceasefires between Israel and its Islamist adversaries have frequently provided only temporary relief, later giving way to renewed hostilities. Militant groups have often used pauses to rearm, test Israel’s resolve, and recalibrate their tactics. From the Second Intifada to the repeated Gaza conflicts of the past two decades, moments hailed as “breakthroughs” have often dissolved into fresh rounds of violence, leaving civilians and soldiers alike to bear the consequences.

Trump’s involvement is politically significant. As the architect of the Abraham Accords, he has positioned the United States once again as an indispensable broker in the region. This is, in part, an attempt to solidify his diplomatic legacy. Yet no amount of negotiation can reconcile the fundamental ideological divide between a democratic state defending its existence and a movement that refuses to accept that state’s legitimacy.

International reaction has been cautiously optimistic. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer described the agreement as “a moment of profound relief that will be felt around the world,” and European capitals have welcomed the development while urging careful implementation. Aid agencies, meanwhile, emphasise the need for safe and unrestricted access for humanitarian convoys. On the ground, Palestinians in Gaza celebrated, and families of Israeli hostages expressed cautious hope.

But hope must be tempered by realism. Can a ceasefire engineered under immense pressure and historical precedent truly hold? Or will it become, as so many past agreements have, merely a brief pause in a cycle of conflict? And, more broadly, is this truce a fleeting interval before the next confrontation between Israel and Islamist forces, whose ambitions extend far beyond the boundaries of Gaza?

Ceasefires can save lives, but history suggests they rarely transform strategic realities. Unless there is a fundamental shift — whether in political will, military capacity, or ideological stance — temporary reprieves may offer only fragile comfort. The coming days will determine whether this deal represents a genuine turning point or simply another short-lived pause in a conflict that has tested generations.

In Gaza, relief is real, and in Israel, hope flickers. But both sides, and the world watching closely, must ask the hard question: is this peace, or merely the calm before another storm?

Main Image: Par Jaber Jehad Badwan — Jaber Jehad Badwan, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=159487463