A Truce a Year Late: Between Hamas's Hesitation and Netanyahu's Calculations

Hamas responded to the latest US proposal for a hostage swap with a "yes, but," according to Israeli media reports. For its part, the Israeli government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, rejected Hamas's reservations about the ceasefire and prisoner exchange proposal, deeming those remarks unacceptable.

Amid these complex negotiations, Hamas is trying to achieve as many gains as possible, but it faces unprecedented popular pressure within the Gaza Strip, where public anger is mounting amid deteriorating humanitarian conditions and the lack of prospects for a solution.

Two million Palestinians live in Gaza, their lives hanging in the balance, hoping the killing and destruction wreaking havoc across the territory will stop. Under a stifling blockade and rampant hunger, the residents of the Strip cannot tolerate the continuation of the war without a clear vision for how to end the tragedy.

On the other hand, the United States is betting on imposing a temporary truce that could develop into a permanent agreement, in an attempt to achieve a political achievement supported by US President Donald Trump, who seeks to leverage this progress in the context of his broader regional efforts to contain Iran and build new alliances with the Gulf states. The truce announcement may coincide with Netanyahu's recent visit to Washington.

Despite this, both Palestinian sides realize that the path to a final agreement is not without obstacles placed by the occupying state. However, in Israel, some politicians have expressed rare optimism about the possibility of reaching an agreement after months of rejection and fiery statements by Netanyahu, who claimed a comprehensive victory. Leaks indicate that the occupying state is offering some language concessions to facilitate reaching a compromise formula.

But Netanyahu's hesitation is not hidden. On the one hand, he is showing apparent flexibility, while on the other, he is placing obstacles to the agreement, attempting to reassure his far-right allies that options are still open. He is also betting on the Knesset's upcoming recess until October to ensure the stability of his government and avoid the risk of collapse.

Meanwhile, disagreements continue within the Israeli security establishment. Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir has opposed plans by far-right ministers to establish military rule and besiege Rafah residents with the aim of pushing them toward Sinai, believing such moves could ignite the region. Meanwhile, Netanyahu is exploiting this disagreement to demonstrate his loyalty to the right-wing coalition and send messages indicating his willingness to escalate when necessary.

As for Hamas, it is in a difficult political dilemma. It realizes that accepting a partial agreement could weaken its position in the future, but it also faces enormous popular pressure as a result of the ongoing blockade and destruction. Therefore, the movement is trying to buy time to obtain real guarantees regarding the lifting of the blockade and reconstruction.

Amid these political calculations, the humanitarian situation in Gaza remains tragic by all standards. Widespread destruction, severe shortages of food and medicine, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes. Meanwhile, the Israeli war machine and airstrikes continue to claim Palestinian lives.

An agreement may be announced this time, but after a full year of evasion, destruction, and bloodshed, everyone realizes that the price paid by the Palestinian people was extremely high, and could have been avoided had Netanyahu not used the war as a domestic and foreign pressure card, and had Hamas not been trapped by stifling popular pressure.

Ultimately, the Palestinian people remain trapped between continuing their suffering or accepting an agreement that may not fully meet their aspirations, but which nonetheless offers them a chance to survive and what's left of it. A real solution requires international will and a refusal to deny Palestinians their rights and self-determination, given the intertwined interests at play. Will this will find its way under these circumstances?