Gaza Strip- Palestine 

In a stunning and potentially historic turn of events for the nearly two-year war in Gaza, the Palestinian group Hamas has offered a conditional green light to parts of the Trump Peace Plan, particularly the provisions regarding a hostage and prisoner exchange. This unexpected move, following a decisive ultimatum from US President Donald Trump, has fueled hope across the globe for a possible end to the devastating conflict and the long-awaited hostage release. The immediate global reaction was one of cautious optimism, tempered by the substantial caveats and demands for negotiation attached to Hamas’s acceptance, signalling that the most complex diplomatic hurdle may still lie ahead.

The official response from Hamas was delivered late on Friday, just hours after President Trump set a Sunday evening deadline for the militant group to accept or face unspecified, yet “tragic” consequences. The response was a pivotal moment, as the 20-point American-brokered proposal—which Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had already accepted—was designed without direct consultation with Hamas and calls for the group’s ultimate disarmament and renunciation of power.

Crucially, the statement from Hamas confirmed its approval to release all Israeli captives held in the Gaza Strip—both living and the remains of the deceased—”according to the exchange formula outlined in President Trump’s proposal,” which calls for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel. This concession addresses the central humanitarian component of the proposal, raising the prospect of an immediate ceasefire and the return of approximately 48 remaining hostages, as per the plan’s 72-hour timeline for their release after a ceasefire begins.

However, the group’s acceptance came with significant, non-negotiable-sounding conditions and demands for further talks. Hamas made it clear that while they endorse the hostage exchange, other far-reaching elements of the plan “require further consultations among Palestinians.” The most significant reservations appear to concern two key pillars of the Trump proposal: the group’s disarmament and the future governance of the Gaza Strip.

The US-led plan stipulates that Hamas must completely disarm and that Gaza will become a “de-radicalized terror-free zone.” The statement from the Palestinian group did not address the issue of disarmament. Instead, it focused on the future administration of the enclave, stating a readiness to “hand over the administration of the Gaza Strip to a Palestinian body of independents (technocrats) based on Palestinian national consensus and with Arab and Islamic support.” This is a clear deviation from the Trump plan’s vision of a governing “Board of Peace” headed by President Trump himself, with external representatives like former British Prime Minister Sir Tony Blair. The insistence on a purely Palestinian body, with Arab and Islamic support, underscores their rejection of any direct external control over their future government.

Furthermore, Hamas stated that any aspects of the proposal touching on “the future of the Gaza Strip and the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people” must be decided on the basis of a “unanimous national position and relevant international laws and resolutions.” This suggests a strong reluctance to accept the demilitarization requirements and the plan’s failure to offer a pathway toward a future Palestinian state that reunifies Gaza with the West Bank—a notable sticking point that analysts believe isolates Gaza from the larger Palestinian cause.

International pressure, particularly from key mediators Egypt and Qatar, is widely credited with pushing Hamas to respond positively to the deal. Arab nations, having welcomed the Trump initiative in principle, have been leveraging their influence to prevent an outright rejection that would have prolonged the war. The White House, while not immediately releasing a full statement on the conditional acceptance, acknowledged the receipt of the response, signaling the next phase will be a high-stakes shuttle diplomacy to bridge the gaps between Hamas’s caveats and the unyielding terms of the US-Israel-backed proposal.

The road to peace remains fraught with difficulty. Analysts view the conditional acceptance as a tactical victory for diplomacy, opening a vital “window for negotiations.” Yet, the fundamental disagreement on the future of the militant group and its armed wing suggests that the path from a conditional ‘yes’ to a lasting ceasefire agreement will be long and complicated, relying on the political will of all parties to make significant, painful concessions. For the people of Gaza, this conditional approval represents the greatest hope for an end to the destruction and a potential hostage release since the war began.

Headline Points

Conditional Approval:

Hamas announced its conditional acceptance of key elements of the 20-point US-brokered Trump Peace Plan, specifically the prisoner-hostage exchange framework.

Hostage Release Pledged:

The group confirmed it is ready to release all remaining Israeli captives—both living and deceased—in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, as outlined in the proposal.

Ultimatum Precedes Response:

The acceptance came hours before a Sunday evening deadline imposed by US President Donald Trump, who had warned of severe consequences for a full rejection.

Governance Disagreement:

Hamas rejected the international oversight element of the plan, stating it would only hand over the administration of Gaza to an independent Palestinian technocratic body based on national consensus.

Negotiation Demanded:

The group insisted that fundamental issues, including the future of Gaza and the rights of the Palestinian people, require “further consultations” and a unanimous Palestinian stance.

Disarmament Unaddressed:

The Hamas statement conspicuously avoided addressing the plan’s core demand for the group to fully disarm and renounce its military capabilities.

 * Israel on Board: Israel’s government had previously accepted the terms of the Trump plan, which was designed to align closely with many of its security and political demands.