In a rare, on-camera explanation to CBS News broadcast on Oct. 8, Israel’s ambassador to the United States outlined how a ceasefire and hostage-release framework with Hamas took shape, portraying it as the outcome of prolonged mediation, hard concessions and careful sequencing designed to meet immediate humanitarian needs while protecting Israeli security interests.

According to the ambassador, the agreement evolved through discrete, multilayered channels in Doha and Cairo, with sustained involvement from U.S. diplomatic teams that sought to stitch together rival priorities. Regional mediators, he said, played critical roles as interlocutors with Hamas’s leadership in Gaza, relaying Israeli demands for robust security guarantees and mechanisms to prevent rearmament, while pushing Hamas to agree to phased releases of captive civilians and soldiers.

“The path to this framework was neither linear nor guaranteed,” the ambassador told CBS. He described a series of incremental steps: the first aimed at securing the immediate release of vulnerable hostages and allowing more consistent humanitarian access to Gaza; subsequent phases tied to further releases and monitored pauses in fighting; and a parallel understanding that reconstruction and a scaled-up flow of aid would be conditioned on verifiable safeguards.

The ambassador emphasized that international monitoring — principally coordinated by Qatar and Egypt, with U.S. technical support — would be essential to verify compliance. He insisted Israel would retain the right to respond to violations and would not accept arrangements that left it exposed to renewed attacks. These details, he said, reflect a calculus informed by domestic political pressure in Israel, the military’s operational imperatives and the mounting international demand to relieve civilian suffering in Gaza.

Humanitarian agencies and rights groups welcomed the promise of increased aid corridors but cautioned that implementation would be the true test. International lawyers noted that while a ceasefire can reduce immediate harm, it does not erase allegations of potential violations of international humanitarian law that preceded the deal. The International Criminal Court and other investigative bodies, observers pointed out, could continue to pursue legal avenues independent of any political settlement.

Reactions in Washington were cautiously supportive. U.S. officials framed the agreement as an urgent step to secure hostages and prevent further civilian casualties while maintaining pressure for a durable political solution. Regional capitals, including Amman and Ankara, expressed guarded hope that a ceasefire could open space for a longer-term normalization of constraints that have trapped Gaza’s population for years.

But the envoy’s account also highlighted fragility. Hamas’s internal factions, the exclusion of the Palestinian Authority from core negotiations, and the dependence on outside guarantors create multiple fault lines. Israeli domestic politics — where skepticism of concessions to Hamas runs deep — could complicate ratification and enforcement. For Gaza’s civilians, the difference between a negotiated pause and a lasting peace will depend on the pace and transparency of aid, reconstruction commitments, and measures to restore civilian governance.

Diplomats and analysts say the deal’s greatest achievement may be procedural: proving that disparate actors can be brought to the table under intense pressure. Its durability, however, will hinge on whether short-term humanitarian relief can be translated into credible, enforceable guarantees that address both security concerns and the long-standing political grievances at the heart of the conflict.