Image Credit - al-monitor.com Timeline of key events: Oct 7, 2023: Hamas attacks southern Israel; Israel launches a major offensive in Gaz...
 |
| Image Credit - al-monitor.com |
Timeline of key events:
Oct 7, 2023: Hamas attacks southern Israel; Israel launches a major offensive in Gaza.
January 2025: Israel and Hamas agree to a temporary truce. In three phases, Israel released dozens of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Israeli hostages.
March 18, 2025: A two-month ceasefire brokered by the US, Egypt and Qatar ends. Israel renews its military campaign in Gaza after rocket fire resumes.
May 30, 2025: U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff, representing President Trump, presents a 60-day ceasefire plan to Hamas. The deal — approved by Israel — would free 10 living Israeli hostages (and 18 bodies) in return for 1,200+ Palestinian prisoners. White House officials say Israel had agreed to the terms.
May 31, 2025: Hamas submits a response via mediators. The US envoy calls the reply “totally unacceptable”, saying it “only takes us backward.” Israel’s government likewise rejects the new conditions.
Background: January Ceasefire and Prisoner Swaps
Freed Palestinian prisoners were greeted by jubilant crowds in the West Bank during a January 2025 truce. That three-phase agreement briefly halted 15 months of war and included a hostages-for-prisoners exchange: Israel released dozens of Palestinians from its jails as several Israeli captives were freed. The January truce, however, left many key issues unresolved.
Celebrations broke out as freed Palestinian prisoners returned to the occupied West Bank in January 2025. Hamas supporters waving the group’s flags hailed the swap deal, but Israel treated the ceasefire as temporary. Once rocket fire resumed, Israel ended the truce on March 18 and pressed its campaign in Gaza. Since then, repeated mediation efforts by the United States, Egypt and Qatar have failed to bridge Hamas’s demands (end the war, Israeli pullback) and Israel’s conditions (dismantle Hamas, release all hostages).
Hamas’s Response to the U.S. Ceasefire Proposal
On May 31, Hamas publicly submitted its reply to the US-backed truce plan. A Hamas statement said the group would free 10 living Israeli hostages and 18 bodies, in exchange for “an agreed-upon number of Palestinian prisoners”. But it insisted the deal must “achieve a permanent ceasefire” and include a “comprehensive withdrawal from the Gaza Strip” by Israeli forces. In other words, Hamas reiterated war-ending demands that Israel has already rejected.
A senior Hamas official – speaking to The Associated Press – said the group’s counter-proposal focused on “US guarantees, the timing of hostage release, the delivery of aid and the withdrawal of Israeli forces,” though he gave no specifics. Another Hamas figure, Basem Naim, told Al Jazeera the US envoy had in effect changed the deal during talks. Naim said Hamas had earlier agreed to one negotiating paper with Envoy Witkoff, but the envoy returned with a different proposal “that had nothing to do with what we agreed upon.” He warned that the new plan gave “no guarantees to end the war”.
In a somewhat vague public statement, Hamas said its response was the result of “national consultations” and emphasized ending hostilities. The group’s document demands unrestricted movement through the Rafah crossing, the resumption of goods flows, and large-scale reconstruction aid (electricity, water, roads, hospitals, schools) once a ceasefire is in place. It claims U.S. President Trump and mediators in Egypt and Qatar would guarantee the terms. Hamas also asked to stagger the release of the 10 living hostages over the 60-day truce – effectively seeking periodic exchanges to ensure Israel sticks to the deal.
U.S. Envoy and Officials Respond
On social media, U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff blasted Hamas’s answer. He wrote on X (Twitter) that he had received the group’s reply and that it was “totally unacceptable and only takes us backward.” He urged Hamas to “accept the framework proposal we put forward as the basis” for negotiations, saying it was “the only way we can close a 60-day ceasefire deal in the coming days”. Witkoff’s plan, he reminded followers, would secure the return of half the living hostages and half of the deceased within two months, and open talks toward a lasting truce.
President Donald Trump – who dispatched Witkoff as his personal Middle East envoy – also commented. On Friday (May 30), Trump said negotiators were “very close” to a deal and promised an announcement “during the day or maybe tomorrow”. He later told reporters he believed a ceasefire was imminent. The White House confirmed that Israel had formally approved the parameters of the 60-day truce plan. No high-ranking Biden administration officials were publicly involved in this negotiation; the effort has been led by the Trump envoy and regional partners.
Israeli Government Reaction
Israeli leaders swiftly dismissed Hamas’s counter-proposal. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Hamas’s response was “unacceptable” and “sets the situation back,” echoing Witkoff’s language. He vowed Israel would “continue its action for the return of our hostages and the defeat of Hamas”. Netanyahu’s office had reportedly told hostages’ families earlier that Israel had agreed to Witkoff’s outline, and the PM showed no sign of retreating from the conditions Israel initially accepted.
Israel’s Defense Minister, Israel Katz, issued a stark warning on social media. He said Hamas would now have to “choose: accept the terms of the ‘Witkoff Deal’ – or be annihilated.” In his words, “the Hamas murderers will now be forced to choose: accept the terms of the deal for the release of the hostages – or be destroyed.” Katz’s statement underscored that Israel is treating Hamas’s refusal as grounds to continue its campaign aggressively.
Earlier Israeli commentary — even before Hamas’s formal reply — was dismissive of the draft plan. One Israeli official had told Reuters that “no responsible government could accept” the proposed agreement, and media reported Netanyahu calling it untenable. In public, Israeli leaders have demanded the disarmament and full dismantling of Hamas, plus the return of all hostages, as prerequisites for any long-term halt.
Regional Mediators (Egypt, Qatar)
Egypt and Qatar, which mediated the previous truce, are again key intermediaries. Egypt’s Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty said Cairo is using “all our strength to end the war in Gaza,” urging a quick agreement “to stop the bloodshed”. He stressed the need for “unrestricted” humanitarian aid to Gaza and condemned the use of hunger as a weapon. Qatar’s ruler and officials have similarly pushed for a deal; in recent months Doha hosted ceasefire talks, though Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani acknowledged on May 20 that talks had “not led anywhere” due to the deep differences between Hamas and Israel.
Hamas relayed its response to the US via the mediators in Qatar and Egypt; Qatari and Egyptian delegations worked with Hamas leaders to fine-tune the reply. On Saturday, Qatar’s prime minister did not immediately comment on the new impasse, but Doha has been expected to help shuttle messages and frame compromises. Kuwait and Oman have also expressed support for a deal, and the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas welcomes any plan that ends the fighting (though it was not directly involved in this latest proposal).
Humanitarian Context and Negotiation Roadblocks
Analysts note that Gaza’s dire humanitarian crisis underpins the urgency of talks. The United Nations reports that Gaza’s 2.4 million people are enduring “the hungriest place on earth” conditions, as Israel’s aid blockade — in place since early March — has choked off most supplies. The World Food Program said Palestinians recently seized UN food trucks in desperation, and UN agencies warn the entire population now faces risk of famine. These alarms coincide with reports that aid deliveries (now only hundreds of trucks per week versus 600 daily before the March assault) remain woefully insufficient.
Negotiations have repeatedly stalled on basic points. Israel demands the end of Hamas as a military and governing force, while Hamas insists on Israeli withdrawal and war’s end. A Palestinian official involved in talks says Hamas’s latest requested amendments include phased hostage releases and concrete guarantees that the truce will become permanent. Israel has flatly rejected Hamas’s preconditions for a permanent ceasefire (fully withdrawing from Gaza) and still holds its line that the war must only halt after all remaining hostages are freed and Hamas is neutralized.
Since the March ceasefire collapse, neither side has shown willingness to compromise on these core demands. Reuters notes that “deep differences between Hamas and Israel have stymied previous attempts” at truce talks. In May, a Palestinian source said Hamas was “dissatisfied” that the US proposal lacked “genuine guarantees” of a war’s end. On the Israeli side, security analysts argue that accepting any deal short of full disarmament would be seen as defeat.
International and Expert Commentary
Major news outlets highlight that the current impasse mirrors past patterns. Reporting by Reuters and AP emphasizes that “friction in negotiations” is expected at this stage. Analysts note that both sides have incentives to hold hard lines: Hamas seeks leverage to alleviate Gaza’s suffering and force Israeli concessions, while Israel fears empowering Hamas. The National (UAE) observes that it is “improbable” Israel would agree to any immediate full withdrawal from Gaza.
Diplomatic experts warn that frustration is rising on all sides. Some Arab commentators blame Israel for continuing the war without a political horizon, while Israeli pundits largely blame Hamas for stonewalling a deal that would free hostages. Former mediators say that even moderate steps — like international guarantees or a more detailed aid plan — could be considered, but for now official statements remain rigid.
As one Western diplomatic analyst summarized: without a shift in Hamas’s or Israel’s red lines, every ceasefire proposal risks collapse. The current US-backed framework was “the most detailed truce plan so far,” according to reports, but the very differences that collapsed the March truce (disarmament vs. withdrawal) have again surfaced.
With Gaza’s humanitarian crisis worsening by the day, international pressure is mounting for some breakthrough. But for now, the US envoy’s sharp rebuke of Hamas’s response underscores how far the sides remain from agreement. The coming days will show whether mediators can salvage the framework Wittkoff has put forth, or whether hostilities will intensify once again amid despair.
Sources: News agencies and official statements, including Reuters, AP, Al Jazeera, The Washington Post, The National, Anadolu Agency, and United Nations releases. All statements are attributed as reported.
No comments