On Thursday evening, Israel’s Security Cabinet convened to discuss a proposed ceasefire agreement with the Palestinian resistance group Hamas but concluded without taking a vote, leaving the fate of the Gaza ceasefire and hostage release deal uncertain. The meeting, originally scheduled for 5 p.m. local time, was delayed by over an hour, according to the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth. A subsequent government session intended to finalize approval of the agreement was further postponed until 10 p.m., following a four-hour delay, signaling internal challenges or disagreements within the Israeli leadership.
A government spokesperson, Shosh Bedrosian, had earlier stated that the ceasefire in Gaza would commence within 24 hours of Cabinet approval. “Within 24 hours of the Cabinet meeting, the ceasefire in Gaza will begin,” Bedrosian said, though she refrained from specifying an exact timeline for implementation. This statement underscored the urgency of the agreement, which has been the subject of intense international diplomacy in recent days. However, the absence of a vote during the Thursday meeting has cast doubt on the immediate prospects for peace in the war-torn region.
The ceasefire agreement in question was announced at dawn on Thursday, following four days of indirect negotiations between Hamas and Israel in Egypt’s Red Sea city of Sharm el-Sheikh. The talks, mediated by Türkiye, Egypt, Qatar, and the United States, aimed to broker a deal to halt the violence that has devastated Gaza and address the ongoing hostage crisis. The negotiations were part of a broader effort to de-escalate the conflict, which has claimed tens of thousands of lives and displaced countless others since its escalation in October 2023.
The framework for the ceasefire stems from a 20-point plan unveiled by former U.S. President Donald Trump on September 29, 2025. The plan outlines a multi-phase approach to resolving the conflict, beginning with the release of all Israeli captives held by Hamas in exchange for approximately 2,000 Palestinian prisoners. It also calls for a permanent ceasefire and a gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from the entire Gaza Strip, a move that would mark a significant shift in the region’s military dynamics.
The second phase of Trump’s plan proposes a new governing mechanism for Gaza, explicitly excluding Hamas from participation. Instead, it envisions the establishment of a security force composed of Palestinian personnel alongside troops from Arab and Islamic countries. The plan also mandates the disarmament of Hamas, a contentious point that has historically been a sticking point in negotiations. Furthermore, it stipulates that Arab and Islamic nations would provide funding for the new administration and the reconstruction of Gaza, with limited involvement from the Palestinian Authority. This financial and administrative restructuring aims to rebuild the enclave, which has been rendered largely uninhabitable due to prolonged conflict.
The proposal has garnered cautious support from Arab and Muslim countries, with several leaders expressing optimism about the prospect of peace. However, officials have also emphasized that many details of the plan require further discussion and negotiation to ensure its feasibility. The exclusion of Hamas from Gaza’s future governance, in particular, raises questions about the group’s response and the potential for renewed violence if their influence is not addressed diplomatically. Additionally, the reliance on external funding and security forces introduces complexities regarding sovereignty and long-term stability.
The backdrop to these negotiations is the catastrophic toll of the conflict. Since October 2023, Israeli military operations in Gaza have resulted in the deaths of nearly 67,200 Palestinians, the majority of whom are reported to be women and children. The relentless bombardment and ground offensives have left the enclave in ruins, with critical infrastructure destroyed, homes reduced to rubble, and essential services such as healthcare and water supply severely disrupted. The humanitarian crisis has drawn international condemnation, with aid organizations struggling to provide relief amidst ongoing hostilities.
The failure of the Security Cabinet to vote on the ceasefire agreement reflects the delicate and politically charged nature of the negotiations. Within Israel, the government faces pressure from multiple fronts. Hardline factions within the Cabinet may oppose concessions to Hamas, particularly the release of Palestinian prisoners and the withdrawal of troops. At the same time, public and international calls for an end to the violence have intensified, as the death toll continues to rise and images of destruction dominate global headlines. The delay in the government session until 10 p.m. suggests that internal deliberations are ongoing, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu navigating a complex political landscape to secure consensus.
For Hamas, the ceasefire represents both an opportunity and a challenge. The group has long demanded the release of Palestinian prisoners and an end to Israeli military operations in Gaza. However, the proposed disarmament and exclusion from governance could undermine its authority and influence in the enclave. Hamas’s willingness to accept the terms of the agreement remains uncertain, as the group has historically resisted measures that diminish its military or political power.
The involvement of Türkiye, Egypt, Qatar, and the United States as mediators highlights the international community’s vested interest in resolving the conflict. Each country brings its own perspective and leverage to the table. Türkiye and Qatar have maintained channels of communication with Hamas, while Egypt’s proximity to Gaza and its history of brokering ceasefires make it a key player. The United States, with its close alliance with Israel, has sought to balance diplomatic pressure with support for its ally’s security concerns. The collaborative effort in Sharm el-Sheikh underscores the global stakes of the Gaza conflict, which has ramifications for regional stability and international relations.
As the region awaits further developments, the humanitarian situation in Gaza remains dire. The United Nations and other aid organizations have called for an immediate ceasefire to allow for the delivery of food, medical supplies, and other essentials. Displaced families are living in makeshift shelters, and hospitals are overwhelmed with casualties. The destruction of schools, mosques, and residential buildings has left an entire generation grappling with trauma and loss. The international community has pledged billions of dollars for Gaza’s reconstruction, but without a sustained ceasefire, these efforts risk being undermined by continued violence.
The coming hours and days will be critical in determining whether the ceasefire agreement moves forward. If approved, it could mark a turning point in the conflict, paving the way for a cessation of hostilities and the beginning of a long and arduous rebuilding process. However, the absence of a vote on Thursday evening suggests that significant hurdles remain. The delicate balance of domestic politics, international diplomacy, and the demands of both parties will shape the path ahead.
For now, the people of Gaza and Israel remain in limbo, caught between hope for peace and the reality of a conflict that has already claimed too many lives. The international community watches closely, aware that the outcome of these negotiations will have far-reaching implications for the Middle East and beyond. As mediators continue their efforts and leaders grapple with difficult decisions, the prospect of a lasting ceasefire hangs in the balance, with the potential to either break the cycle of violence or prolong the suffering of millions.
