Israel-Hamas peace agreement: support and appeals from the Uruguayan political system

The Israel-Hamas peace agreement received the support of the National Party and the Colorado Party. This first phase saw the release of 20 Israeli hostages and the release of 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, according to statements from both Uruguayan parties. They also called for continued diplomatic efforts and respect for international law.

Local support for the Israel-Hamas peace agreement

From the Colorado Party, Secretary General Andrés Ojeda stated that the expectation is to achieve "the release of all hostages as soon as possible." He recalled that his party had identified the return of the kidnapped individuals as an essential step toward peace in the Middle East. The emphasis was placed on measurable results: freed hostages, safe corridors, and verifiable timelines.

The National Party's Board of Directors issued a statement expressing hope for the agreements reached. The statement placed the agreement within a prolonged conflict that has left thousands of victims in both communities and highlighted the importance of this first hostage release. It also called for negotiations to continue with clear objectives: reducing violence, guarantees for civilians, and verification mechanisms.

The two parties emphasized the historical principles of Uruguayan foreign policy: the peaceful resolution of disputes, adherence to international law, and the rejection of all terrorist actions. In this context, the Israel-Hamas peace agreement was seen as an opportunity to organize a humanitarian and political agenda that prioritizes the protection of the civilian population.

Context, scope and next steps

The agreement includes, as an initial milestone, the return of 20 Israeli hostages and the release of 2,000 Palestinian prisoners. This exchange, according to Uruguayan political forces, could pave the way for additional measures: more releases, humanitarian access, and a sustained reduction in hostilities. What remains to be defined? The sequence of further releases, the ceasefire deadlines, and the enforcement mechanisms.

In practical terms, the calls are directed at regional and international actors to maintain active mediation channels, with a technical presence to monitor what has been agreed upon. Independent verification, periodic reporting, and clear points of contact help avoid contradictory interpretations. For Uruguay, a framework with these characteristics aligns with its tradition of supporting multilateralism.

The Israel-Hamas peace agreement also puts on the table humanitarian conditions that require continuity: the entry of basic supplies, the protection of hospitals and schools, and the safeguarding of emergency equipment. Operational priorities include nominal lists of people to be released, transfer procedures, and security guarantees at each stage. Without these components, the sustainability of the process loses strength.

In Uruguay, the public reading focuses on verifiable facts. On the one hand, the initial release of hostages and the movement of Palestinian prisons. On the other, the expectation that these measures will not remain isolated, but rather integrated into an agenda that includes all hostages and a de-escalation plan. On this point, the party statements converge: supporting what has been achieved and calling for verifiable progress.

Reactions, cautions and standards

The support expressed by the National Party and the Colorado Party includes some caution. Recognizing a first step does not mean closing the conflict. The Uruguayan political groups reiterated that any lasting solution must respect the legitimate aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians and adhere to the standards of international humanitarian law. The orientation is clear: processes, not isolated events.

The Israel-Hamas peace agreement will be evaluated for its ability to produce sustained results. Among the indicators assessed are the continuity of releases, the integrity of humanitarian corridors, the reduction of armed incidents, and access to verifiable information. Observation missions and public reports from international organizations can provide input for this evaluation.

At the local level, the debate maintains an institutional framework. The role of the parties, the Foreign Ministry, and parliamentary bodies is observed where appropriate. Uruguay's historical position of support for peaceful solutions and rejection of terrorist practices serves as the framework. Citizen expectations are organized around a simple and concrete objective: protecting lives and advancing effective negotiations.

What to look forward to

The coming days will be crucial in measuring the consistency of the process. If new releases are completed in a timely manner, the peace agreement between Israel and Hamas will gain traction. If operational truces are consolidated and humanitarian access is expanded, trust between the parties may improve. The key will be coordinating actors, setting verifiable milestones, and communicating progress unambiguously.

For Uruguay, follow-up prioritizes coherence: support for measures that reduce the suffering of the civilian population and bring a just and lasting peace closer. In this context, the statements from the National Party and the Colorado Party expressed support for the understanding, urged the continuation of diplomatic channels, and reaffirmed principles the country has upheld for decades.

The process does not end with this first stage. The commitments made will require new agreements and controls. The focus will continue to be on concrete data: how many people are released, what guarantees are offered, and how compliance is monitored. These are verifiable parameters that allow us to measure whether the path opened by this initiative is transforming into a real opportunity to reduce violence and protect the civilian population.