February 14, 2025
Nasser Kandil
• Tomorrow, Saturday, presents the clearest opportunity to read the regional and international landscape. Two opposing sides, each backed by alliances spanning the region and the world, stand before a pivotal event: the scheduled prisoner exchange in Gaza. This follows a war in which both sides tested their hard power for sixteen months, leaving behind destruction and death, with the International Court of Justice deeming the atrocities sufficient to warrant charges of genocide against the occupying entity. The war culminated in a ceasefire agreement, the motivations behind which have been subject to extensive interpretation, as analysts attempt to decipher the balance of power that shaped its emergence.
• On one side of the war stood Israel, backed by the entirety of the West,, most notably the United States, with all its military and political weight: aircraft carriers, warships, intelligence networks, satellites, financial resources, weapons stockpiles, and munitions factories. On the other side, resistance forces in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, alongside Iran, joined the war effort at varying levels of engagement and sacrifices, in support of the Palestinian resistance, led by Hamas. Yet, the complexities and particularities of each battlefield blurred the ability to form a unified assessment of the war’s outcome and the power dynamics it yielded. Gaza remained the ultimate battleground, the decisive arena where the war’s results and the new equations of power would be determined, precisely because it was the primary theater of combat and the core issue that divided the warring factions.
• The ceasefire agreement was announced in Gaza alongside threats from U.S. President Donald Trump, who warned of “unleashing hell” upon the Middle East if the prisoners were not released before his return to the White House. This was widely interpreted as a direct threat to Hamas and the resistance. Yet, when the agreement was finalised, its terms made it clear: the occupying entity had accepted conditions that Hamas had already agreed to eight months prior, as outlined in the May 2024 ‘Burns Plan’ for a ceasefire – an initiative previously rejected by Benjamin Netanyahu. The agreement mandated a full withdrawal of occupation forces from Gaza, including from the Philadelphi Corridor and the Netzarim crossing, and ensured the unconditional return of displaced Palestinians from southern Gaza to the north, with no concessions from the resistance regarding its weaponry. The unfolding implementation of the agreement confirmed that it was a response to the resistance’s demands. Meanwhile, a narrative, promoted by Arab and Western media, suggested that Netanyahu had sought to prolong the war but was ultimately forced into the deal due to pressure from Trump, whose White House return had become a personal challenge to the Israeli leader.
• In the days following the agreement, events accelerated, drawing in all the forces that had shaped both the war and the ceasefire. As a result, tomorrow, Saturday, has become a historic day for assessing the balance of power, not only in Gaza and Palestine but across the entire region. Hamas announced that it was suspending the scheduled prisoner exchange unless the occupying entity honored its commitments to allow prefabricated homes, heavy machinery, and other humanitarian provisions outlined in the agreement – provisions whose obstruction was directly tied to Trump’s vision of Palestinian displacement. Trump’s immediate response was to threaten Hamas directly with “hell” if it did not release all prisoners by Saturday. He urged the world to wait until then to see what would unfold.
• As the hours passed, the picture became clearer. If Netanyahu, who had been compelled by Trump’s pressure to accept the agreement, was indeed eager to resume the war, he now had his perfect opportunity to scrap the deal, free himself from its obligations, and reunite his fractured government and the far-right factions backing him. He could have immediately issued an ultimatum: release all prisoners within hours, as Trump demanded, or the agreement would collapse, and the war would resume. Yet, instead of seizing this chance, Netanyahu hesitated, then delayed, then reconsidered, then pondered, then reflected. Gradually, his position, and that of his war cabinet, began to crystallise: they would wait until Saturday. If Hamas released the three prisoners it was expected to free, the agreement would hold. Meanwhile, Hamas’s demands for the entry of prefabricated homes and heavy equipment would be met before Saturday arrived.
• Saturday will bring a historic moment – one where the agreement is implemented on Hamas’s terms. Netanyahu, having capitulated to these conditions, has chosen not to return to a war he was reportedly forced to end under Trump’s pressure. In doing so, he loses the illusion of strength he attempted to project when halting the war. Likewise, Trump loses his claim to credit for imposing a ceasefire by compelling Netanyahu to accept the deal. This time, beyond all doubt, the balance of power that ended the war was forged by the resistance, through its steadfastness, the resilience of its people, and the cohesion of its allied forces, despite the immense sacrifices endured.
• Trump’s “hell” is empty bluster – an unacknowledged, worthless gift he can keep, and Netanyahu’s so-called absolute victory is, in reality, an absolute defeat.
