Mohammadreza Moradi, Director of International and Foreign News at Mehr News Agency, wrote in a note that the implementation of the prisoner exchange process between the Palestinian resistance and the Israeli regime, alongside the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, should be regarded as one of the defining moments in the Middle East war-and-peace equation; a moment that is not only intertwined with the humanitarian dimension of the Gaza crisis but also carries deep political, security, and strategic messages. This event represents a convergence of three perspectives: the Palestinian resistance, which, through its persistence, forced the enemy to retreat; the Israeli regime, which after two years of a war of attrition sought a dignified way out of the crisis; and the U.S. government, which, under the so-called “Trump Peace Plan,” sought simultaneously to restore its image in the region and assist its ally in Tel Aviv.
A Ladder for Netanyahu’s Escape
The recent agreement, brokered directly by the Trump administration with the participation of certain Arab actors in Sharm El-Sheikh, was essentially a “political gift” to Benjamin Netanyahu. Having faced consecutive military defeats, a domestic legitimacy crisis, and unprecedented international pressure over the past two years, Netanyahu now sees the ceasefire as an opportunity to repair his position. As analysts have noted, Trump’s initiative aimed to provide Netanyahu with a ladder to step down from the tree of war—a war that neither succeeded in freeing Israeli captives nor eliminated the resistance.
Although the Trump plan appears “peaceful” on the surface, it essentially seeks to deliver at the negotiating table what Netanyahu failed to achieve on the battlefield: relative calm, political survival, and the preservation of Israel’s deterrent image. For this reason, many observers regard the Sharm El-Sheikh agreement as a “diplomaticly wrapped failure” for Israel—a calculated effort to turn a military defeat into a political achievement.
The Failure of Military Power Logic
In contrast, the Palestinian resistance, through two years of steadfastness against the harshest attacks, proved that absolute military power cannot impose political will. The Al-Qassam Brigades rightly stated that “despite its intelligence superiority and military strength, the enemy failed to retrieve its prisoners through military pressure and is now forced to comply, returning Israeli captives only through negotiation, as the resistance had promised.”
Israel realized in this war that military operations—even with full intelligence coverage and U.S. logistical support—cannot fully determine the outcome on the ground. The release of prisoners through negotiation and agreement is an implicit acknowledgment by Tel Aviv of the failure of the “use of force” strategy—the very strategy that has underpinned Israel’s security since 1948.
From Battlefield to Legitimacy Battle
The prisoner exchange also carries symbolic and psychological dimensions. While Israel attempted to portray the resistance as a “terrorist” force, the realization of this agreement demonstrated that Israel is compelled to sit at the negotiating table with the very force whose legitimacy it denied. In other words, the resistance, through this process, elevated itself from a military group to a political actor—a player capable of imposing its will through negotiation, ceasefire, and agreement. This development transforms the global perception of Hamas and other resistance groups and could lay the groundwork for redefining their role in the future political structure of Palestine.
Conversely, Israel faces a dual legitimacy crisis: both before the international public, which has witnessed humanitarian crimes in Gaza, and domestically, where failure to militarily free prisoners is seen as the collapse of the “invincible army” image.
Humanitarian and Social Message of the Prisoner Exchange
From a human perspective, the return of 1,986 Palestinian prisoners to their homeland and families was a historic moment. Scenes of welcoming them at Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis were not just moments of joy but symbols of the collective spirit of Gaza’s people. This event demonstrated that, despite two years of hunger, displacement, and blockade, Palestinian society has not collapsed from within and has preserved its capacity for civil and social resistance. In political discourse, this phenomenon can be described as the “victory of the resistance narrative over the narrative of devastation”—a narrative born from the ruins that still carries hope. The return of these prisoners is essentially the restoration of collective memory to the battlefield, as each of them becomes a living witness to both crime and resilience.
Conclusion
The prisoner exchange under the Sharm El-Sheikh agreement can be considered a milestone in contemporary Palestinian history—a point at which the resistance, through its persistence, was able to shift the power equation and show that the will of nations can prevail over the machinery of war. On the other hand, the Trump-backed agreement, while attempting to portray a triumphant image for Netanyahu, in fact confirmed the failure of Israel’s military strategy. The main question now is whether this ceasefire will lead to a lasting peace or merely serve as an opportunity for the occupier to regroup. Historical experience shows that Israel has never been loyal to any agreement. Statements by its officials, including Netanyahu and the war minister, about continuing operations to “destroy Hamas” and “demolish tunnels” reveal Tel Aviv’s true intentions. Therefore, the risk of returning to conflict or selectively implementing the agreement’s clauses remains.
MNA/
Your Comment