Hamas agreeing to release the remaining hostages, albeit subject to negotiations and specific conditions, has brought a renewed sense of hope and relief to many Israeli families who have been waiting in anguish for months. For countless relatives and loved ones, the announcement represents the first real sign of progress after prolonged uncertainty, despair, and grief. The decision, which comes at a critical point in the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict, has been described by analysts as a potential breakthrough in one of the most emotionally charged and politically complex aspects of the war.
In its official statement responding to the U.S.-brokered peace proposal, Hamas confirmed its willingness to “release all Israeli prisoners, both living and dead, according to the exchange formula contained in President Donald Trump’s proposal, provided the field conditions for the exchange are met.” The acknowledgment marks one of the few times the militant group has publicly signaled readiness to comply with a framework endorsed by Washington, signaling possible movement toward a negotiated truce. While skepticism remains high in both Tel Aviv and Washington, the statement has already shifted the tone of international diplomacy, with mediators cautiously optimistic about the next steps.
The Trump peace proposal, unveiled earlier this week at the White House, details a multi-phase plan designed to end hostilities and initiate an immediate humanitarian exchange. Under the proposed formula, all living Israeli hostages held by Hamas would be released within 72 hours, alongside the repatriation of the remains of those confirmed dead. In return, Israel would free hundreds of detained Palestinian prisoners, many of whom have been held without formal charges. This reciprocal approach aims to build confidence between both sides while laying the groundwork for broader ceasefire talks and regional stabilization.
Currently, it is estimated that 48 hostages are still being held within the Gaza Strip by Hamas and affiliated militant factions. Of those, intelligence sources and humanitarian agencies believe that only around 20 are still alive, with the rest presumed deceased. The issue of hostages has been a deeply emotional and politically explosive topic in Israel, driving public protests, national debates, and mounting pressure on the Netanyahu government to secure their return. For the families of those still missing, Hamas’s statement offers a glimmer of optimism amid months of despair and uncertainty.
International observers have urged both sides to seize this rare diplomatic opening. The United Nations, European Union, and Qatar, which has previously played a mediating role in Israel-Hamas prisoner swaps, have all expressed cautious support for the proposed framework. Humanitarian organizations, including the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders, have emphasized that any deal must ensure the safe transfer of hostages and compliance with international law.
If successfully implemented, this agreement could represent one of the most significant developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict since the outbreak of hostilities. Beyond the humanitarian relief it would bring, analysts say it could also set the stage for renewed negotiations over a lasting ceasefire, reconstruction efforts in Gaza, and broader peace-building measures.
The acceptance by Hamas of another crucial element of the U.S. peace plan—the proposal to transfer the governance of Gaza to a team of independent Palestinian technocrats—marks a potentially transformative development in the region’s political landscape. This move signals a willingness by Hamas to consider a less militant, more administrative role in the future of Gaza, which could pave the way for a new era of governance based on professionalism and neutrality rather than armed control. International observers have welcomed this shift as a step toward restoring stability, rebuilding essential infrastructure, and ensuring better humanitarian management in the war-torn territory. The idea of empowering technocrats, rather than factional leaders, is seen as a mechanism to reduce corruption, rebuild trust among Palestinians, and re-establish critical services that have been devastated by years of conflict.
However, despite this apparent progress, major gaps remain in the 20-point U.S. peace proposal that continue to raise concerns among diplomats and analysts. Several key issues—such as the disarmament of militant groups, the control of border crossings, and the coordination of security operations with Israel—were noticeably absent from Hamas’s statement of acceptance. The group’s selective endorsement of certain elements of the plan, while ignoring others, highlights the fragile and conditional nature of the negotiations. For any agreement to succeed, both sides will need to address these unresolved matters comprehensively and transparently.
The most glaring omission from Hamas’s response is the requirement to lay down its arms. This remains one of the most contentious and defining aspects of any potential peace deal. The disarmament clause, central to Washington’s and Tel Aviv’s expectations, aims to ensure a lasting cessation of hostilities and prevent the recurrence of cross-border attacks. Hamas’s silence on this point underscores the deep mistrust that still defines relations between the two sides. For Israel and its allies, the group’s refusal—or even hesitation—to discuss disarmament is viewed as a major obstacle to long-term peace and a significant test of the deal’s credibility.
Analysts suggest that without a verifiable commitment from Hamas to demilitarize, the U.S. peace plan could face strong resistance within Israel’s political and security establishment. For years, Israeli leaders have insisted that any ceasefire or political agreement must include the complete dismantling of Hamas’s military wing and its rocket capabilities. Until that issue is addressed, officials in Jerusalem are likely to remain skeptical of Hamas’s intentions, regardless of any gestures toward political reform or humanitarian cooperation.
The Israeli government is expected to closely analyze the precise wording of Hamas’s latest statement in order to determine the group’s true intentions. Every phrase will be examined by Israeli intelligence, diplomats, and security officials to assess whether this represents a genuine act of good faith or a calculated strategy to delay and manipulate the negotiation process. For Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration, the question now is whether Hamas’s response signifies a sincere acceptance of the U.S.-backed peace deal or merely an attempt to buy time and regroup amid growing international pressure.
Israeli officials are particularly wary of previous patterns in which Hamas appeared to agree to diplomatic overtures, only to retract or reinterpret commitments later. Many within the Israeli security establishment fear that the group’s current statement might be another tactic aimed at securing temporary relief from Israeli airstrikes and military pressure in Gaza. As such, the government will likely adopt a cautious, even skeptical, stance until verifiable actions—such as the release of hostages and the cessation of attacks—are seen on the ground.
One aspect of the Hamas statement that is already drawing concern in Jerusalem is the final paragraph, which implies that Hamas expects to play a continuing role in future negotiations over Gaza’s governance. For Israel, this clause is problematic because it contradicts one of the fundamental goals of the peace framework: transferring administrative control of Gaza to a neutral body of Palestinian technocrats, free from militant influence. The idea that Hamas might retain a seat at the table regarding Gaza’s long-term political future could prove a major stumbling block in Israel’s assessment of the deal.
The timing of Hamas’s announcement—just hours after President Donald Trump issued a final ultimatum for the group to agree to the terms by Sunday evening or face “all hell”—has also raised suspicions. Many in Netanyahu’s cabinet are likely to view the timing as strategic rather than coincidental, designed to ease pressure from Washington and the international community while avoiding direct confrontation.
Adding to Israel’s unease is President Trump’s call for an immediate halt to the bombing of Gaza following Hamas’s statement. “Based on the statement just issued by Hamas, I believe they are ready for a lasting PEACE,” Trump said in a social media post shortly after the announcement. He added, “Israel must immediately stop the bombing of Gaza, so that we can get the Hostages out safely and quickly. Right now, it’s far too dangerous to do that.” The statement reflects a significant shift in tone from Washington, placing pressure on Israel to pause military operations at a sensitive juncture.
Later on Friday, Trump released a video message calling it a “big day” and expressing gratitude to a number of countries he credited with helping broker the peace proposal. Although he did not specify which nations were involved, diplomatic sources suggest that Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey played vital roles behind the scenes. Trump’s announcement was met with mixed reactions—praised by some as a bold step toward peace, and criticized by others who believe it concedes too much to Hamas.
Despite the optimistic tone of Trump’s comments, even the president acknowledged that the process is far from over. “We’ll see how it all turns out,” he said. “We have to get the final word down and concrete.” His words reflect the reality that countless logistical and political hurdles remain before any true peace can be achieved in the region. Issues such as security guarantees, humanitarian access, prisoner exchanges, and long-term governance structures still need to be finalized.
For now, both Israel and Hamas appear to be maneuvering for advantage in what could become a historic diplomatic moment. While the U.S.-led peace initiative has generated momentum, the path to lasting stability in Gaza remains uncertain. Whether this proposal leads to a breakthrough or another failed attempt will depend on sustained commitment, verification, and trust—three elements that have been elusive in decades of Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts.
