Egypt, Qatar, and the U.S. push mediation amid mounting humanitarian crisis and internal dissent in Israel. Trump supports destroying Hamas. Netanyahu stays mum but a “senior official” in Israel says partial deal is a “no-go” : that train has left the station.
Hamas announced this week that it has agreed in principle to a temporary cease-fire proposal crafted by mediators Egypt and Qatar with support from the United States. The deal would last 60 days and includes a phased release of hostages and prisoners, as well as a partial Israeli withdrawal from certain areas of Gaza and a significant increase in humanitarian supplies to the enclave.
According to the outline conveyed to both sides, Hamas would release ten living Israeli hostages along with the bodies of several others who have died in captivity. In return, Israel would release between 150 and 200 Palestinian security prisoners. During the cease-fire, Israeli troops would withdraw from some forward positions in Gaza City and Rafah, though the Israel Defense Forces would retain freedom of operation in much of the Strip. Aid convoys and fuel deliveries would be substantially expanded, something Hamas has long demanded.
For Hamas, this acceptance represents a tactical shift. Having rejected earlier proposals requiring a permanent cessation of hostilities and the dismantling of its military infrastructure, the group has now opted to accept a partial, short-term truce. Analysts say this is partly a reflection of the dire conditions in Gaza, where food shortages and collapsing medical services have put intense pressure on the organization from the civilian population it governs. Mediators have also noted that Hamas has eased some of its earlier demands, such as a complete Israeli pullback from all urban areas and a guaranteed halt to reconnaissance operations.
Israel’s reaction, however, has been firm: the era of partial deals is over. Senior officials repeated the mantra that only a comprehensive settlement—one that includes the release of all hostages, the permanent removal of Hamas’s leadership, and effective demilitarization of the Strip—will be acceptable. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently emphasized that anything short of decisive victory would be a betrayal of Israel’s war aims and the memory of those killed on October 7.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich reiterated this line, declaring that “we fight only to win, not for a partial deal.” National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir also weighed in, stating that Netanyahu has “no mandate” to agree to any arrangement that allows Hamas to survive as a political or military force. Their hardline position reflects a broad consensus within the governing coalition: temporary pauses in fighting may serve tactical needs, but they must not replace Israel’s strategic objective of total victory.
Yet signs of quiet maneuvering behind the scenes suggest a more complex picture. The head of Mossad, David Barnea, traveled recently to Qatar for consultations, a move widely interpreted as an effort to explore possible compromise formulas that could advance hostage releases without ceding too much ground. Israeli officials neither confirmed nor denied the purpose of Barnea’s trip, but leaks suggested he met Qatari and Egyptian counterparts to review Hamas’s latest position and to gauge whether further talks could bridge the gap.
The humanitarian dimension of the crisis is increasingly difficult for Israel to ignore. The United Nations has warned of widespread starvation in Gaza, and aid groups have pleaded for safe corridors to deliver food and medicine. At the same time, families of the Israeli hostages have mounted daily protests in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, calling on the government to seize any opportunity to bring their loved ones home. Some argue that Israel’s rigid refusal to accept partial agreements risks leaving the remaining hostages to perish while international sympathy for Israel erodes.
This tension is mirrored within Israel’s own security establishment. While the political leadership is determined to press on until Hamas is destroyed, military commanders are mindful of the operational and diplomatic costs of prolonged urban combat. Some generals reportedly favor exploring limited truces to alleviate civilian suffering and buy time for regrouping. Netanyahu, however, has brushed aside such considerations, signaling that Israel cannot afford to be seen as wavering in the face of Hamas’s tactics.
Diplomatic mediators continue to walk a fine line. Egyptian and Qatari officials have urged Israel to treat Hamas’s acceptance as an opening that could lead to a broader settlement. U.S. representatives, while supporting Israel’s security requirements, have also underscored the urgency of addressing the humanitarian catastrophe. Washington’s message has been that a temporary truce may not end the war, but it could provide a platform for subsequent negotiations.
The Israeli government has promised to deliver its formal response to the mediators by Friday. If Israel outright rejects the plan, analysts predict a backlash on several fronts: intensified international condemnation, further erosion of support among European allies, and possibly heightened domestic unrest as hostage families escalate their campaign. On the other hand, acceptance of even a temporary cease-fire risks being seen by hardliners as a dangerous concession that gives Hamas time to regroup.
This diplomatic moment illustrates the central dilemma confronting Israel nearly eleven months into the war. The government insists that victory means nothing less than the elimination of Hamas as a military and political entity. Yet the practical realities—starving civilians in Gaza, anguished families of hostages in Israel, and mounting external pressure—make it increasingly difficult to ignore partial solutions. Netanyahu faces a stark choice: hold fast to the demand for unconditional surrender, or consider interim steps that could ease suffering and bring some hostages home.
Whichever path Israel chooses, the decision will carry immense consequences. Rejecting the deal may strengthen Israel’s deterrence posture but could deepen its international isolation. Accepting the deal may save lives but risks prolonging Hamas’s survival. The world is now watching to see how Netanyahu balances his coalition’s demand for victory with the nation’s urgent humanitarian and diplomatic imperatives.
For Hamas, acceptance of the cease-fire proposal is unlikely to mark a genuine change in strategic outlook. The organization still envisions itself as the vanguard of resistance and is determined to survive politically. Yet by signaling flexibility at this stage, Hamas hopes to portray itself as a pragmatic actor while placing the burden of rejection on Israel.
As Friday’s deadline approaches, the outcome remains uncertain. What is clear is that the conflict has entered a new diplomatic phase—one in which the definition of victory and the meaning of compromise will determine not only the fate of the remaining hostages but also the future of Gaza and Israel’s position in the international arena.
I believe that this agreement would serve to strengthen Hamas and recover part of what it lost.