By: Fern Sidman

As reported by Israel National News (INN) and corroborated by multiple international outlets, Israel is on the cusp of approving a potentially transformative ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip—pending a formal response from the Hamas terrorist organization, expected by Friday evening. The development signals a delicate but momentous juncture in the nearly nine-month conflict that has ravaged the region since the Hamas-led massacre on October 7, 2023, and the subsequent launch of Israel’s military campaign to dismantle the terror group’s infrastructure in Gaza.

According to the report that appeared on Thursday at INN, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has convened a special meeting of the security cabinet at his Jerusalem office Thursday night to assess the latest proposal on the table and to prepare for the possible reengagement of Israeli negotiators in indirect talks. These talks, long mediated through regional actors and Western diplomatic channels, now appear to hinge on Hamas’s reply to a revised ceasefire framework.

The latest outline differs significantly from earlier American-sponsored proposals, such as the one introduced in May, which envisioned the complete release of all living hostages by the seventh day of the truce. As the report at Israel National News explained, the revised structure introduces a phased exchange process spanning 60 days.

According to sources cited by Reuters and The New York Times, and confirmed in part by INN, the new plan stipulates the following: The release of 10 living Israeli hostages by Hamas, the transfer of 18 bodies believed to be those of Israeli civilians and soldiers held by the group, and a five-stage timeline over a two-month ceasefire period.

No public “release ceremonies” or televised propaganda by Hamas, an effort to avoid the international backlash sparked by such displays during the previous ceasefire earlier this year.

Israeli sources quoted by INN have emphasized that the new agreement would include a strong emphasis on discretion, security coordination, and incremental confidence-building steps, designed to avoid past pitfalls that undermined earlier truce efforts.

With tensions within the war cabinet mounting and public scrutiny intensifying over the fate of the remaining hostages, Netanyahu’s decision to convene the limited cabinet tonight underscores the high stakes of the current moment. Israel National News reported that while some members of the government remain skeptical of Hamas’s intentions, there is growing consensus that a carefully monitored ceasefire could provide a strategic opportunity—not just to secure the return of Israeli captives, but to reshape the final phases of the war on Israeli terms.

Three senior Israeli officials speaking to INN noted that while the new plan introduces phased hostage releases rather than an all-at-once return, it contains one key shift: guarantees—not merely intentions—that the ceasefire would culminate in an end to the war. This change, though contentious in Israel’s security circles, reflects a calculated attempt to draw Hamas into a diplomatic framework while retaining operational leverage.

According to the information provided in the INN report, if both Israel and Hamas approve the framework, the official announcement will be made not by a UN body or regional mediator, but by President Trump, who has reemerged as a central diplomatic actor in the conflict. Trump will serve as the “guarantor and sponsor of the agreement’s implementation,” according to sources with direct knowledge of the text.

This arrangement signals a marked pivot from prior multilateral frameworks and highlights the direct engagement of the Trump administration in brokering a politically viable off-ramp for the conflict. Israeli analysts cited by INN suggest that Trump’s involvement may help pressure Hamas, whose leadership is acutely aware of the implications of defying a U.S.-brokered framework under Trump’s robust Middle East doctrine.

On the other hand, a source close to Hamas told regional media that the framework largely mirrors previous drafts presented by U.S. envoy Brett Witkoff, with only “minor changes.” This discrepancy in interpretations may indicate internal divisions within Hamas or an effort to save face ahead of a possible deal.

The agreement, as presented by INN, includes a mutual commitment from all mediators to prevent a renewal of hostilities during the 60-day truce, even if negotiations stall. Importantly, it sets the stage for the opening of final-status talks aimed at reaching a permanent ceasefire and establishing a roadmap for a complete and gradual Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

This language, although conditional, introduces a profound shift in diplomatic momentum. While the Israeli government has not publicly endorsed a full withdrawal, officials quoted by Israel National News suggest that the current focus is squarely on hostage recovery, while preserving Israel’s operational freedom to respond to Hamas violations during the ceasefire.

Still, critics within Israel’s security establishment and some members of Netanyahu’s coalition warn that any commitment perceived as a prelude to withdrawal could embolden Hamas or jeopardize future deterrence. Conversely, others argue that this ceasefire—if strictly enforced—could offer a humanitarian window and a diplomatic channel to isolate Hamas politically while securing strategic goals.

As the INN report emphasized, the next 24 hours will be pivotal. Hamas’s formal response is expected before Friday evening. Should it be positive, Israeli negotiators are prepared to immediately rejoin indirect talks with the assistance of mediators in Cairo and Doha.

Israeli society, weary from close to two years of war and united in its demand for the hostages’ return, awaits clarity. For now, a tentative yet tangible opportunity has emerged—an opportunity shaped by pain, patience, and persistent diplomacy. Whether it leads to the beginning of peace or the next chapter of war may hinge not only on Hamas’s decision, but on Israel’s ability to navigate the delicate balance between tactical concessions and strategic imperatives.