The Guardian view on a ceasefire in Gaza: a step forward, but this is far from over

The ceasefire and hostage release deal between Israel and Hamas will be deeply felt. To some, it will mean everything. If it proceeds as agreed, the families of 50 women and children of Israeli and other nationalities, held hostage by Hamas since its murderous raids on 7 October, will at last be reunited with their loved ones – with the first release expected on Friday at the earliest. For traumatised families in Gaza, the deal will bring respite from relentless airstrikes and the prospect of desperately needed aid. It will also see the release of 150 Palestinian women and children from Israeli prisons.

There has been talk of such an arrangement for weeks. There is fury among relatives that hostages have ranked so low on Benjamin Netanyahu’s list of priorities: the Israeli prime minister did not meet family members until this week. Hamas refused to provide identifying information on hostages and threatened to cut talks over Israel’s raid on al-Shifa hospital. In the intervening time, several hostages have died, and thousands more Palestinians. Another 100 people in Gaza were killed within hours of the deal being announced.

Nonetheless, the hope is that this brings, however belatedly, a critical change in dynamics. The deal, brokered by Qatar and the US, includes an option to extend the four-day ceasefire if more hostages are released. The sight of family reunions, and the suffering of hostages, might build support in Israel for a longer-term deal. A fuller picture of the devastation in Gaza, through access for outside journalists, is likely to increase international pressure.

What this does not mean is an end to the war. Almost 200 hostages will still be held. Martin Griffiths, the UN humanitarian chief, describes the situation in Gaza as “the worst ever … complete and utter carnage”. Two-fifths of the estimated 14,000 dead are children, and 1.7 million people have been displaced – three-quarters of Gaza’s population. The emergency effort can offer only very limited relief: Oxfam called the deal “a Band-Aid that will be ripped off a bleeding wound after four days”. The Israel Defense Forces say that it is an “operational pause”, not a ceasefire, and Mr Netanyahu has stressed: “We’ll continue in the war.” Hamas insists: “Our hands will remain on the trigger.”

The same forces that delayed this deal will work against its extension. Hamas will seek a higher price for the remaining hostages. Mr Netanyahu is fighting for political survival. While he carried this proposal with the support of some of the extremists in his cabinet, the national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, attacked it as “immoral”. Israel continues to state that its goal is eliminating Hamas. There is no sign that Israeli political opinion is cohering around a plan for what may come after the war – still less any indication that the necessary international parties would sign up.

If matters proceed as arranged, however, it may at least lead to a longer-term diminution of the assault on Gaza. The Biden administration has already made it clear that it will not stomach a full-scale expansion of Israeli operations into the south. The offensive might resume at a lower intensity and continue indefinitely. Though this would be better than the 160 children that the UN estimates have been killed each day, no one could celebrate it. This agreement is to be welcomed. It must be made to work and, if possible, built upon. But its limitations must be fully understood.