When US President Donald Trump published his triumphant Truth Social post on Thursday announcing the new agreement to disarm Hamas, remove Israeli forces from Gaza and put the Strip under the supervision of a Palestinian police force, technocrats and international peacekeepers, he ended, characteristically, on an all-caps note of vindication:

“CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL ON THIS AMAZING DEVELOPMENT, THAT EVERYBODY SAID COULD NEVER BE ACHIEVED!”

The celebration may prove premature.

Indeed, the US and its partners seem to have quietly achieved a deal that, if implemented, promises to simultaneously remove (or at least defang) the threat to Israel on its southern border, return the territory to some form of Palestinian control, and allow it to begin rebuilding.

But that’s a huge if. Israel has already objected to the agreement’s terms, Hamas has yet to lay down a single weapon, and the whole enterprise relies on parties that have opposing interests and don’t trust each other working in concert like a Swiss watch. No one will be surprised if this deal falls apart.

Still, even at this stage, this agreement represents something rare: A chance for a variety of ideological stakeholders to all claim victory.

For the entirety of the Gaza war, a pair of debates raged in tandem, with some areas of overlap.

The first debate was between Israel and its global critics. Israel argued it was fighting a war of necessity against an eliminationist terror group that had massacred Israelis and promised to do so again. Many of Israel’s critics charged that it was engaged in war crimes, ethnic cleansing, even genocide — all seeking to push Palestinians off their rightful land.

The second debate occurred within Israel, between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his opponents. Netanyahu argued that military pressure was key to defeating Hamas, and that halting the fighting before a “total victory” would pass up a crucial opportunity to safeguard Israel’s security. His opponents argued that after two years of grueling fighting, Hamas remained intact, and that he was the one passing up opportunities by refusing a deal that would have brought the hostages home earlier and saved lives.

Both sides, in both debates, can reasonably claim that this deal proves them right. Unfortunately for everyone, the agreement also proves them all wrong.

And it could put the prime minister in an impossible position ahead of Israel’s election — wanting to please both a US president who does not brook insubordination, and voters in his own base who view ceding territory as anathema.

How the deal could prove Israel right — and its critics wrong

Israeli officials have reservations about the deal, which asks its troops to pull back from territory while a terror group sworn to its destruction gradually disarms. But internationally, it’s easy to make the case that this deal supports Israel’s argument. Israel has long........

© The Times of Israel