The announcement that Hamas has released the last 20 living hostages held in Gaza, under a newly inked Gaza declaration with Israel, represents a dramatic turning point in a conflict-ravaged region. But beneath the celebratory headlines lie enduring uncertainties, contradictions, and potential pitfalls that risk undermining long-term stability.

What the Deal Entails and What It Leaves Open

The Exchange Agreement

Under the terms of the deal, Israel is releasing nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners (including both detainees and convicted individuals) in exchange for the hostages freed by Hamas. Though many view this as a moment of humanitarian relief, the inclusivity of the prisoner list (some with serious security offenses) has stirred fierce debate in Israeli political and security circles.

Ceasefire and Partial Withdrawals

The agreement is tied to a ceasefire, the gradual withdrawal of Israeli troops from parts of Gaza, and the opening of humanitarian corridors. The deal is being positioned as the first phase of a larger “Gaza peace plan” signed on 9 October 2025.

However, critical elements remain unresolved:

The disarmament of Hamas was not mandated in this phase.

The future governance structure of Gaza remains vague, particularly whether Hamas will relinquish political control or be phased out in favor of technocratic administration.

Questions about security guarantees, cross-border oversight, and the precise terms of Israeli redeployment remain open.

Thus, what has been hailed as a “historic breakthrough” may instead be the opening act in a far more delicate political drama.

Strategic and Political Stakes

Leverage, Perception & Symbolism

The release of hostages has enormous symbolic value, especially for Israeli society, where families have endured years of anguish and uncertainty. For Hamas, the deal is a propaganda victory, reinforcing its perception as a resistance group capable of negotiating from a position of strength.

Domestic Political Pressures

In Israel, hardline elements see the release of prisoners convicted of serious offenses as a betrayal of victims. Some argue that such concessions may embolden militant groups. In Gaza and the broader Palestinian territories, the returned prisoners will likely re-enter political and social circuits, potentially altering internal power balances.

Governance, Legitimacy, & Reconstruction

Even if violence pauses, rebuilding Gaza will be a herculean task physically, socially, and politically. Reconstruction requires funding, secure management, and effective governance models. Without clarity on who holds executive authority in Gaza post-deal, the reconstruction may descend into fragmentation or deeper regional dependency.

D. Risk of Breakdown or Reversion

This landmark moment is fragile. If one party, Israel or Hamas, perceives non-compliance or unmet expectations, the ceasefire could collapse. Historical patterns suggest that localized clashes or renewed hostilities could quickly destabilize what is now a tenuous peace. Observers note that Hamas’s earlier offer to free hostages was a calculated gamble; it carries no guarantee of lasting peace.

Critical Questions Going Forward

Will Hamas ultimately disarm, or continue to exert military and political influence in Gaza?

Who will govern Gaza in the interim and beyond, technocrats, a neutral body, the Palestinian Authority, or remain under Hamas influence?

How will Israel monitor that the released prisoners do not revert to militancy?

What guarantees will be in place to prevent a re-escalation of conflict?

Can international actors (U.S., Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, others) sustain diplomatic, financial, and security support to preserve the ceasefire?

The Gaza declaration and hostage release represent a rare moment of relief in a conflict that has wrought immense suffering. The emotional reunions and diplomatic momentum are real and meaningful. Yet, this step, dramatic though it is, does not resolve the deeper war between competing visions of governance, legitimacy, security, and justice.

If handled prudently, this agreement could be the foundation of a slow but measured transition toward stability. If mishandled, it risks unraveling, reigniting cycles of violence. The challenge ahead lies not in the signature on paper but in the sustained political will, clarity of mechanism, and courage of all sides to transform what is now a pause into a viable, just peace.