THE Israel-Hamas deal signed in Sharm el-Sheikh marks a dramatic shift in Middle Eastern geopolitics -- and perhaps a reluctant acknowledgment of a reality Israel long tried to deny.
For decades, Israel labeled Hamas a terrorist organization, refusing to engage politically. Yet, after years of cyclical warfare, international outrage and strategic exhaustion, Israel has now sat across the table with the same group it once vowed to eliminate. The world is asking: Why now? Why did Israel, after a brutal war and even a failed assassination attempt in Doha, agree to deal with Hamas? To answer this, we must revisit the origins of Hamas, the motives behind its October 7, 2023 attack and the eventual outcomes of this devastating conflict.
The seeds of this peace accord were paradoxically sown in conflict. In September 2025, Israeli warplanes struck Doha's Laqtifiya district, targeting senior Hamas figures branded as terrorists by Israel. The strike marked a pivotal moment: Qatar, a key US ally and host of Hamas's political office, faced immense diplomatic pressure, while Israel drew widespread condemnation for violating Qatari sovereignty. Although the attack failed to eliminate Hamas leadership, it compelled regional powers -- notably Egypt, Qatar and Saudi Arabia -- to renew mediation efforts aimed at ending the prolonged hostilities.
For Israel, agreeing to the Sharm el-Sheikh deal was less about reconciliation and more about damage control. The Gaza war of 2023-2024 left Israel diplomatically isolated and morally burdened by images of destroyed hospitals, refugee camps and starving civilians. Even within Israel, public opinion fractured: some demanded total annihilation of Hamas, while others, weary of endless conflict, urged negotiation. Benjamin Netanyahu's government, under intense domestic and international scrutiny, found itself compelled to accept talks brokered by Egypt and the United States.
Ironically, Israel itself played a role in Hamas's creation, as Osama was created by CIA. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, as the secular PLO under Yasser Arafat gained strength, Israel covertly encouraged Islamist factions in Gaza to counter Palestinian nationalism. Founded in 1987 during the First Intifada, Hamas, initially tolerated and indirectly supported by Israel, soon outgrew its containment. By the mid-1990s, it had become the fiercest opponent of Israel's occupation and the Oslo Accords -- a transformation fueled by siege, injustice and displacement that birthed an adversary far more resilient than the PLO ever was.
The attack on October 7, 2023, which killed around 1,200 Israelis and took hundreds hostage, was neither random nor purely reactionary. It was a calculated strike rooted in years of despair and strategic frustration. For Hamas, the blockade of Gaza -- in place since 2007 -- had turned the territory into an open-air prison. Peace talks were frozen, settlements were expanding, and normalization between Israel and Arab states under the "Abraham Accords" sidelined the Palestinian issue entirely.
Hamas leaders believed a large-scale operation would reinsert Palestine onto the global stage, derail Saudi-Israel normalization, and expose Israel's vulnerabilities. The aftermath was catastrophic: Israel's overwhelming assault reduced Gaza to rubble, killing over 70,000 Palestinians and collapsing humanitarian corridors. Yet, despite its military dominance, Israel failed to eliminate Hamas, which retained control pockets and a loyal base viewing survival as victory. Israel's claim of having "decimated" Hamas proved hollow when the group appeared at the Sharm el-Sheikh talks, underscoring that while Israel gained tactically, it suffered strategic defeat -- its global image tarnished and its security narrative in disarray.
For Hamas, the war's toll was unimaginable -- thousands of its fighters dead, Gaza in ruins -- yet the organization achieved several objectives. The October 7 attack forced the world to confront the unresolved Palestinian question once again. By compelling Israel to negotiate, Hamas transitioned from pariah to political actor. Despite official Arab silence, public opinion across the Muslim world shifted decisively in favor of Hamas, framing it as the embodiment of Palestinian resistance.
For Israel, the war exposed a grim truth: it can win every battle but lose the war for legitimacy. International courts began probing Israeli war crimes, while global protests reshaped perceptions of its occupation. The country's internal divisions deepened, with protests in Tel Aviv demanding Netanyahu's resignation and questioning the government's long-term strategy. The Sharm el-Sheikh accord represents a truce of exhaustion, not reconciliation. It guarantees limited autonomy for Gaza, prisoner exchanges, and a gradual easing of blockades, yet the core issue -- Palestinian sovereignty -- remains unresolved.
From Doha's failed strikes to Cairo's patient diplomacy, the Middle East has entered a new phase: a reluctant coexistence between occupier and occupied. Hamas's endurance and Israel's pragmatism have collided to create a fragile peace. Neither side won militarily; both were forced to confront political reality. Hamas proved it cannot be erased, and Israel learned it cannot live in perpetual war. The Sharm el-Sheikh deal, however imperfect, is not the end of conflict -- it is the beginning of acknowledgment.
-- The writer is editor, political analyst and author of several books based in Islamabad.