Hostages, politics, and power plays: Why Hamas’s peace gesture could still end in chaos

In what could be the most significant shift since the Gaza war began, Hamas has announced that it accepts the framework of a U.S.-brokered peace plan and is prepared to release all remaining Israeli hostages. The statement marks a potential turning point after nearly two years of bitter conflict, but diplomats warn that “major hurdles” still stand in the way of execution.

The tentative agreement, part of a 20-point Gaza peace proposal reportedly championed by U.S. President Donald Trump, includes provisions for the phased release of hostages, a cessation of military operations, and discussions about the governance of Gaza. While Hamas has accepted the principles, its conditional language—calling for further negotiation before implementation—suggests that the road ahead remains fraught with political and operational landmines.

Israel’s government responded cautiously, saying it was prepared to initiate the first phase of the plan as long as Hamas honored its commitments. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the framework as “a basis for progress, not peace itself,” emphasizing that Israel would retain full authority over security arrangements in the region until all terms were verified.

At the heart of the announcement is the fate of roughly forty-eight hostages believed to remain in Hamas custody. Israeli officials estimate that only about twenty of them are alive, based on intelligence reports and previous exchanges. Earlier phases of negotiation had already returned more than one hundred captives—both living and deceased—to Israeli authorities.

Why is Hamas agreeing to release hostages now, and what does it hope to gain politically?

Analysts believe Hamas’s decision stems from a mixture of strategic pressure and political calculus. After months of devastating airstrikes and growing humanitarian crises in Gaza, the militant group faces internal divisions and external isolation. Accepting the peace plan allows Hamas to reposition itself as a legitimate political actor rather than a besieged militant entity.

This also plays into Hamas’s long-term objective of securing prisoner releases from Israel and reestablishing some form of political authority in post-war Gaza. The move, however, does not indicate ideological surrender. The organization has refused to commit to full disarmament or dissolve its governing apparatus, arguing that such conditions would strip Palestinians of their means of self-defense.

For Hamas, agreeing in principle is a diplomatic win that costs nothing upfront. It projects goodwill internationally, particularly toward mediators like Qatar and Egypt, while keeping negotiations fluid enough to extract additional concessions later. But Israel and Western powers remain deeply skeptical, describing Hamas’s language as deliberately ambiguous and designed to buy time.

What are the biggest obstacles standing between the agreement and actual implementation?

The phrase “major hurdles” repeated across diplomatic briefings refers to a trio of overlapping challenges: governance, security, and verification.

The first obstacle centers on who will govern Gaza after the hostages are freed. The Trump peace plan envisions a transitional administrative authority composed of technocrats and supported by regional actors. Hamas, however, is unwilling to relinquish its control entirely. It views the handover as a political trap designed to erase its influence and empower rivals such as the Palestinian Authority.

The second hurdle involves Israel’s insistence on ironclad security guarantees. Netanyahu’s administration wants any withdrawal of troops or easing of blockades tied to Hamas’s verified disarmament. That requirement collides with Hamas’s red line: it will not hand over weapons without guarantees of political recognition and immunity from further military action.

The third challenge is one of trust. Decades of failed ceasefires have bred mutual suspicion, and neither side believes the other will fully honor its commitments. Israel fears that Hamas could release only a few hostages before reneging on broader obligations. Hamas, meanwhile, believes Israel may use any minor violation as a pretext to resume bombing. Without a robust verification mechanism—likely under U.N. or Egyptian supervision—each step risks collapsing under its own weight.

How are Israel’s internal politics influencing the fate of the deal?

Israel’s domestic politics could prove just as decisive as Hamas’s intentions. Netanyahu’s governing coalition is split between pragmatists seeking an end to the hostage crisis and hardline ministers who reject any negotiation with Hamas outright. Public opinion has also turned volatile: tens of thousands of Israelis continue to rally in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, demanding the immediate return of hostages.

This public pressure is eroding Netanyahu’s political capital. If he proceeds too slowly, he risks being accused of abandoning the captives. But if he concedes too much, his far-right coalition partners could trigger a government collapse. His critics argue that the prime minister’s hesitancy stems not from strategy but from fear of losing power.

Israel’s defense establishment, however, appears more pragmatic. Military officials have signaled readiness to comply with the first phase of the agreement, which calls for a pause in active operations and the monitored release of captives. Yet they remain wary of what they call Hamas’s “conditional compliance”—a tactic used repeatedly during previous ceasefire negotiations.

How are the United States and regional mediators shaping the negotiations?

Washington’s involvement in the deal is central. President Donald Trump has made the hostage agreement a cornerstone of his broader Middle East strategy, promising “a definitive end to endless wars” through a combination of pressure, mediation, and phased diplomacy.

American negotiators, led by senior envoy Jared Kushner, have maintained constant communication with Egyptian and Qatari officials to facilitate implementation. The U.S. view is that Hamas’s acceptance—however reluctant—validates the administration’s approach of using high-stakes leverage to push both sides toward compliance.

For Egypt and Qatar, mediation offers geopolitical capital. Both nations have maintained working channels with Hamas while coordinating closely with Washington. Their role will be crucial in enforcing any eventual truce and managing prisoner exchanges.

Meanwhile, other regional powers such as Turkey, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates are observing cautiously. They back the concept of a ceasefire but remain reluctant to commit financial or peacekeeping resources until concrete progress is demonstrated. The United Nations has expressed conditional support for the plan, but details of its monitoring role remain unresolved.

Could this lead to a lasting ceasefire, or is it another temporary pause before more conflict?

The outcome hinges on sequencing—who acts first, and under what oversight. If Hamas releases hostages promptly and Israel responds with proportional withdrawal, momentum could build toward a durable truce. That would open space for reconstruction in Gaza, potentially under international supervision.

However, the opposite scenario is equally plausible. Any perceived delay or partial compliance could prompt Israeli retaliation and reignite hostilities. Hamas’s fragmented command structure compounds this risk; different factions may interpret the agreement differently, undermining centralized execution.

Experts warn that without enforceable timelines, international monitoring, and credible economic incentives, the deal may degenerate into yet another failed ceasefire. Still, for families of the hostages and civilians trapped in Gaza, even a fragile reprieve offers a sliver of hope amid exhaustion and despair.

Can President Trump’s Gaza hostage deal truly deliver lasting peace, or is it just another short-lived illusion in the Middle East?

From a strategic standpoint, this is the most substantial diplomatic opening since the conflict erupted two years ago. Hamas’s acceptance, however conditional, signals that military exhaustion and international isolation are forcing recalibration. Israel, under immense domestic and diplomatic pressure, is equally motivated to find an off-ramp that does not appear as surrender.

But hope in this region has always been hostage to politics. Unless both sides accept transparent verification, guarantee humanitarian access, and adhere to synchronized implementation, the promise of peace could once again disintegrate into rubble. The next seventy-two hours will be crucial: they will reveal whether this is the dawn of de-escalation—or merely another mirage in Gaza’s endless desert of broken truces.