Zeynep ConkarHamas’s decision to engage with US President Donald Trump’s Gaza peace proposal has injected cautious hope of ending a nearly two-year Israeli genocide marked by relentless bloodshed and political stalemate.
The Palestinian resistance group, while not fully endorsing the proposal, has signalled readiness to implement the first stage, focused on releasing hostages in exchange for a halt to Israeli attacks.
Trump was quick to welcome the move as a diplomatic breakthrough. Posting on Truth Social, he declared that Hamas was “ready for a lasting peace”.
“Israel must immediately stop the bombing of Gaza, so that we can get the hostages out safely and quickly... this is about long sought peace in the Middle East."
For Hamas, the acceptance is conditional. Disarmament, a key condition of the plan, remains under discussion.
The group also remains cautious about proposals for a foreign-led interim administration, such as the involvement of former British prime minister Tony Blair, stressing instead that any transition of Gaza’s governance must stay under Palestinian leadership and be grounded in international law.
Hamas’s announcement should be read as an opening rather than an endpoint, according to Gokhan Batu, a Levant expert at the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies (ORSAM).
“Along the Deir Al-Balah - Al-Mavasi line, people are being squeezed into a small area, and those who refuse to leave face heavy losses. In the middle of this humanitarian crisis, the cost of rejecting the plan is simply too high. So sending a message of ‘we are open to talks’ matters,” Batu tells TRT World.
“Trump’s statements also show that he is aware Hamas hasn’t fully accepted the plan but that they are acting this way to push Israel to the table.”
Hopeful, but guarded
If fully implemented, the Trump peace plan promises a series of immediate humanitarian and structural changes in Gaza.
The agreement calls for the war to end as soon as both sides accept the proposal, with Israeli forces withdrawing to agreed positions to allow for the release of hostages. In this framework, all military operations, including airstrikes and artillery fire, would be suspended, and the lines of conflict frozen until conditions for the staged withdrawal are met.
This pause in hostilities would create a critical window for rebuilding essential services and restoring some normalcy to life in the devastated enclave of Gaza.
Humanitarian aid would flow more freely, consistent with previous agreements, ensuring that water, electricity, sewage systems, hospitals, and bakeries are rehabilitated, rubble cleared, and roads reopened.
These improvements would directly impact daily life, providing residents with tangible relief and a sense of security after months of devastation.
Alongside these material gains, the governance could shift to a Palestinian-led technocratic administration, supported by international partners, which Batu suggests could facilitate broader discussions on self-determination.
“The most positive aspects would be easing the humanitarian crisis and ensuring that Gaza continues to be administered by Palestinians,” says Batu.
“Preventing Israel from re-establishing settlements there would also count as a positive development,” he adds.
For Gaza residents, even if all measures are not implemented perfectly, the plan offers the potential for safer streets, access to essential services, and a glimmer of hope.
By connecting immediate humanitarian relief to longer-term structural reforms, the proposal lays the groundwork for a more resilient Gaza, even amid lingering uncertainties about the full execution of the plan.
Uncertain path ahead
Scepticism also runs deep when it comes to Israel’s role in the process.
Although Hamas’s response was a step toward dialogue, the real test lies in whether Israel will implement its side of the deal once the initial stages are completed.
Over the past two years of the Israeli genocide, multiple ceasefires have been announced, only to quickly unravel as Israel resumed air strikes and artillery fire within days, if not hours.
Even when temporary pauses were agreed upon, Palestinians continued to face bombing, restrictions on movement, and blockades that prevent essential aid from reaching those in need.
For Palestinians, this has meant that despite agreements on paper, everyday life continues to be defined by insecurity, destruction, and the constant threat of renewed attacks.
According to Batu, the success of the process will rely more on continued international pressure and Trump’s persistence than on Israel’s goodwill alone.
“For Israel, the key issue is the hostages. The deal places hostage release as one of the first conditions. But beyond that stage, there won’t be many levers left to keep Israel committed to the deal.”
“So the functioning of this process depends less on Israel’s will and more on Trump’s persistence, as well as the pressure that regional countries can exert on Israel,” he adds.
Ultimately, Hamas’s acceptance of the first stage of Trump’s plan is a carefully considered step.
It offers a glimpse of potential change but is also aware of the fragility of peace when commitments are contingent on political will rather than enforceable guarantees.
For the people of Gaza, the next steps in negotiations could mean relief or renewed uncertainty; but for the first time in months, there is a cautious reason to hope.
