By Julio Messer
There is mounting evidence that Hamas is now preparing to accept a limited agreement it had recently rejected—one that would secure the release of several Israeli hostages, both living and dead, in return for a temporary ceasefire, the release of Palestinian prisoners, increased humanitarian shipments and a renewed framework for broader negotiations. What has changed?
Large protests against Hamas’s fascism in Gaza today, with thousands demanding dignity, an end to the war & destruction, and calling on the terror group to “get out.” Listen to Palestinians in Gaza; cover these demonstrations; be their voice; amplify their cries. Down with Hamas! pic.twitter.com/c9iHyqvAO5
— Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib (@afalkhatib) March 25, 2025
Several factors have converged to pressure Hamas into recalibrating its stance.
First, the Israel Defense Forces have surprised Hamas with new and more effective battlefield tactics. The militant group, caught off-guard and unable to adapt quickly, needs time and space to regroup. A ceasefire would offer exactly that—an operational pause to shore up its defenses and recalibrate.
Second, Hamas’s grip on power depends on its control over aid distribution and essential supplies in Gaza. The organization has long leveraged humanitarian resources to entrench its authority, by rewarding loyalty and punishing dissent. An agreement would enable crucial shipments to flow in, helping Hamas retain internal stability and replenish dwindling reserves.
Third, the external pressure is intensifying. Egypt and Qatar, both longtime interlocutors, are reportedly urging Hamas to accept a deal. Behind their renewed push is the influence of the Trump administration, which has raised the stakes by warning regional players that continued conflict undermines broader American strategic interests.
Fourth—and perhaps most pressing for Hamas—is the growing unrest within Gaza itself. Anti-Hamas demonstrations have emerged in recent weeks, fueled by frustration over the war, economic hardship and repression. There are indications that these protests are not entirely organic, possibly spurred on by foreign actors seeking to fracture the group’s control. Hamas has a clear incentive to buy time and eliminate these internal threats before they snowball.
From Israel’s perspective, agreeing to this temporary deal comes with its own calculus—some benefits, but also considerable risks.
On the positive side, a hostage release fulfills one of the campaign’s principal objectives. Every Israeli brought home, especially alive, represents a moral and political victory. In addition, the timing may serve Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s domestic agenda. With the government having already secured several key right-wing priorities—including the dismissal of Shin Bet’s chief, movement on ousting the attorney general, the advancement of judicial reforms and passage of the national budget—Netanyahu now has more political space to gesture toward the center. Accepting a hostage deal could resonate with families of the captives and moderate voices, helping to ease internal tensions.
Moreover, it presents an opportunity to politically separate the demonstrators focusing on the hostages from demonstrators with a broader anti-government agenda. Netanyahu can frame the deal as a humanitarian necessity while undercutting those who have used the hostage issue to fuel wider dissent.
But the costs are real. A ceasefire would interrupt Israel’s military momentum, potentially allowing Hamas to rearm and reorganize. It may also signal a betrayal to those inside Gaza who have begun to rise up against Hamas at great personal risk. An agreement could sap their momentum just as cracks begin to show in the militant group’s internal control.
In short, the decision to accept this limited agreement—both by Hamas and by Israel—is born not from a shift in principle, but from evolving strategic realities. For Hamas, it’s a chance to survive. For Israel, a gamble that saving lives today won’t cost more lives tomorrow.
