Soldier’s notes: Assessing the ceasefire and what’s ahead

The ceasefire in Gaza has brought a temporary halt to combat operations, but for those of us in the field, uncertainty lingers. As a combat engineer in the IDF and an immigrant to Israel, I find myself reflecting on the evolving nature of this conflict. I don’t just see this conflict from a geopolitical standpoint; I live it. The dust from the battlefield hasn’t even settled, and yet, I find myself reflecting. We’ve fought, we’ve sacrificed, but what have we actually achieved? If Hamas remains operational despite the first round, what are the strategic lessons to be learned, and how do we recalibrate to achieve lasting security?

Historically, ceasefires in the Middle East rarely mean the end of conflict. From the Geneva conferences regarding Syria, the Iraq war peace proposals, the Yemeni crisis talks to the Lebanese reconciliation efforts, ceasefires aren’t endpoints, they are moments of reorganization. As from an Israeli perspective, Hamas, after 15 months of war has emerged battered by endless battles but not broken. Their strategy is clear: absorb the initial blow, regroup, and leverage international pressure to remain intact. This cycle raises a critical question—how does Israel ensure that any future operation leads to a more stable security reality?

The roots of Hamas’s resilience go beyond battlefield tactics; they lie in a deep ideological foundation shaped by the Muslim Brotherhood, founded by Hassan al-Banna in Egypt in 1928. Al-Banna’s vision was not just a political movement but a total Islamic revival, blending religion and social services. This quiet Jihad would eventually garner support from its benefactors and turn Egypt and its surrounding countries into a Sharia-led state. After al-Banna’s assassination, his successor, Sayyid Qutb, radicalized this vision, arguing that all non-Islamic societies—including secular Arab regimes—were illegitimate and must be overthrown. Slow and quiet Jihad by education and social services wasn’t enough; force must be used to speed up the process. Hamas, which originally started as the Gazan branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, carries these ideological pillars into its doctrine, seeing itself as the vanguard of an Islamic state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean.

This historical lens explains why Hamas is not easily dismantled through military means alone. While their leadership operates like a government, their identity is rooted in an ideological struggle that views any ceasefire as a temporary pause in a larger conflict. Past references by the Palestinian leadership to the al-Hudaybiya truce and the 1967 Khartoum Resolution only affirm the point. The ceasefire, no matter how long it lasts, is just a crossroad of this everlasting conflict. As the counterpart of this long-awaited armistice, the question for Israel is how to balance military operations with broader strategic measures to weaken Hamas’ hold on Gaza in the long term.

The Broader Regional Picture

The war in Gaza cannot be viewed in isolation. It exists within the dynamic geopolitical landscape that is the Middle East, where new alliances and old rivalries are reshaping the region. The Abraham Accords, brokered under the previous Trump administration, opened doors for Israeli cooperation with the UAE and Bahrain, but the true prize was always Saudi Arabia. It is no secret that quiet intelligence and security cooperation between Israel and the Saudis has been going on for years, and a formal normalization agreement—potentially brokered by the US—was on the horizon. Then came October 7th, and everything changed.

Hamas’s unprecedented murderous attack had a hidden strategic message to the Arab world. The group, backed by Iran, sought to derail any peace process between Israel and its Sunni neighbors. And to some extent, they succeeded—Saudi normalization talks were put on hold. However, this does not mean the process is dead. If anything, it highlights the growing sectarian divide: the Iranian-led axis (Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis) versus the Sunni bloc, which—despite public rhetoric—sees Iran as the greater long-term threat.

The Syrian and Northern Fronts

While the world’s attention remains on Gaza, Israel needs to keep their eyes open on all their borders. Recent Israeli military success in the swift defeat of Hezbollah has altered regional dynamics. Hezbollah, once Iran’s most formidable pawn in their army of proxies, suffered a significant blow in the latest confrontation, weakening Tehran’s influence in Lebanon. This victory not only enhances Israeli deterrence but also reshapes the strategic equation, demonstrating that Iranian-backed militias are not invincible. But Hezbollah’s return to Lebanese government under the newly formed Salam coalition needs to keep Israeli eyes peeled. The ceasefire agreement is over, Israel wants to stay in certain Lebanese positions, how much American support is there, can we trust the “real” Lebanese army, and what are Hezbollah’s plans? Questions that need to be answered quickly.

At the same time, Syria is no longer what it was. The recent collapse of the Assad regime has left a power vacuum, Turkish-backed rebel leader al-Julani has taken charge of the war-torn country, trying to convince the West he is the man for the job. Israel now faces a new Syrian regime, one that is fragile and uncertain, with a double question. Who is al-Julani, is he the Ahmad al Sharaa he claims to be, or is he just a bandit in a suit? On the other hand, what does this shift of power mean about Iranian influence in Syria? Is it still an extension of the Iranian border across the Golan Heights? Is it still an umbilical cord for Hezbollah and its warehouses of ammunition? These are more not-yet-answered questions that add more complexity to the mix.

Meanwhile, Iranian proxies in Iraq and Yemen have escalated their actions. The Houthis, emboldened by Iranian support, have targeted Red Sea shipping routes, disrupting global trade. As Israel focuses on Hamas, the so-called seven-front-war still breathes down our neck with new questions. Is Israel prepared for this next stage, one that may even involve Iran directly?

The Hostages and Public Trust

Beyond the battlefield, there is also the human cost of this war—the hostages still held in Gaza. The joy of seeing released captives reunited with their families is tempered by the knowledge that many still remain in captivity. Their fate weighs heavily on Israeli society, reinforcing the urgency of a decisive strategy.

Public confidence is another critical issue. The Israeli people expect a security policy that delivers long-term deterrence. The sickening weekly parade of hostages before their release, with other efforts been made by Hamas showcasing their power, are just acts of propaganda. I have walked the streets of Gaza, there is nothing these monsters can be proud of. But still the few of them that have crept out of their tunnels or UN humanitarian zones have soured the aftertaste of this round of fighting among the Israeli public. That being said, the IDF’s role is not just to fight but to reassure the public that security measures are effective and sustainable. Any future engagement must be based on clear objectives and a well-defined post-conflict strategy. Otherwise, there is a risk of repeated operations without a decisive outcome.

The “Gaza Riviera” and the Need for a Broader Strategy

Recently, the Trump administration proposed a new vision for Gaza’s future—the so-called “Gaza Riviera”—a plan to transform the strip into a thriving economic hub, potentially involving the relocation of Gazans to other areas. While this concept presents an ambitious end goal, it remains unclear how it could be implemented in the current reality. The mere discussion of such a vision highlights the need for a clearly defined, broad strategic framework. Without first dismantling Hamas’ control, ensuring long-term security, and securing international cooperation, such plans remain theoretical. Before we talk about grand solutions, we must first address the fundamental challenges on the ground.

What Comes Next?

As I sit in this ceasefire-induced limbo, I, like many soldiers, am left waiting. Waiting for orders. Waiting for clarity. Waiting to understand the broader strategy. The waiting itself is its own kind of battle, one fought in the mind rather than in the field. Yet, it is in this space that reflection happens—where questions about strategy, history, and geopolitics come to the forefront. The fact that I even have time to write this post suggests that Israel is at a moment of recalibration, not hesitation.

The ceasefire is not the end; it is an intermission. Whether we return to combat or not, Israel’s strategy must evolve. Tactical victories will not be enough—we need a broader vision that addresses the political and military realities shaping this conflict. The Middle East does not reward indecision. If Israel is to ensure lasting security and regain public trust, it must define the real endgame in Gaza with both military clarity and long-term strategic depth.

Meanwhile, beyond Gaza, the broader Middle Eastern chessboard continues to shift. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, and even Syria are all watching Israel’s next move. The decisions made in the coming weeks will not only determine the fate of Hamas but will shape the region for years to come.

As a soldier, I am ready to do my part. But as events unfold, one question remains: will Israel’s next steps lay the foundation for lasting security, or will we find ourselves trapped in another cycle of uncertainty?