U.S. President Donald Trump has announced that Israel has agreed to a 60-day truce formula, coordinated with Qatar and Egypt.
But in Israel, there are no happy endings without high costs.
So, has Netanyahu decided to turn the page on the battle? Or is he manoeuvring under the name of a “deal” to rearrange his grip on power? Will Trump’s new administration provide him an escape from the burdens of his far-right coalition – or draw him back into its fold, plunging him deeper into war?
Why Now?
After over 600 days of open war, the foundations of Israel’s strategic gamble have begun to erode. Total victory now borders on illusion, and despite intense media pumping, the Israeli public is beginning to feel the weight of the political and military stalemate.
This recent shift rests on several key factors:
Trump’s return has given Netanyahu a double-layered strategic cover: externally, aligning with a powerful ally; internally, making the truce appear as a move coordinated with the nearest partner rather than surrendering to international pressures.
A weary public now vocal about its fatigue, with hostage families protesting, and media voices asking, “Where is this war heading?”
Pressure from the military establishment: A Haaretz report revealed that senior IDF officers expressed fears of “battle fatigue,” warning of moral collapse on the home front and urging a political exit to stop the bleed.
According to Israeli leaks, Netanyahu’s government has effectively approved an American-drafted agreement, which includes: a 60-day ceasefire, a gradual prisoner exchange mechanism, and guarantees against resuming military operations during negotiations.
But in a televised speech, Netanyahu said the exact opposite: “We will eliminate Hamas to its core.”
This contradiction is classic Netanyahu – advancing toward calm with one hand, and clinging to war rhetoric with the other.
In Gaza, the idea of a truce raises more questions than answers. A UN report in June 2025 warned that the continued blockade, even with a temporary truce, could worsen the humanitarian crisis, with 80% of the population facing food insecurity. Hamas, on the other hand, may see the deal as a chance to reposition politically, but it faces public pressure to secure immediate humanitarian relief.
Could the truce become a bridge to easing Gaza’s suffering, or will it morph into yet another tool of political pressure? Netanyahu knows that pushing the deal through Likud, let alone his ultra-religious nationalist coalition, is nearly impossible without an inflammatory narrative tying the deal to the “ongoing battle.”
So, he tells every audience what it wants to hear, buying time to pass through a political transition without immediate damage. Since the beginning of the war, it’s been clear: Netanyahu is not chasing a traditional military victory, but a politically marketable moment – a hostage deal, a truce, or a speech claiming “we’ve regained control of Gaza.”
The proposed 60-day truce is more than just a ceasefire. It’s a test of whether a political end to a war long past its limit is possible. What’s clear is that Netanyahu is no longer fully hostage to his coalition. He has, at least for now, regained room to manoeuvre, balancing internal and external ropes.
The real question is no longer: Will the deal be signed? But: How long can he keep manoeuvring before he’s forced to show his cards?
As for Gaza, there is no truce in the humanitarian sense – Only a suspended moment, between delayed death and a fading hope.
[by Ihab Jabarin in Al Jazeera]
Compiled and translated by Faizul Haque
