A terror group can’t be half-peaceful

Why Hamas’s “partial” acceptance of Trump’s Gaza plan is a trap, not a breakthrough. 

Hamas’s so-called “partial acceptance” of Trump’s Gaza plan is being hailed as progress. In reality, it exposes the same strategy that has defined the group for decades: delay, deception, and survival. 

When Hamas announced on October 4 that it would accept “part” of Donald Trump’s 21-point peace plan for Gaza, some diplomats dared to call it a turning point. But behind the cautious optimism lies a familiar pattern. 

A “partial acceptance” of peace is not moderation. It is an attempt to reshape the terms of defeat into another round of negotiation. 

What Hamas actually accepted 

In its statement, Hamas agreed to release Israeli hostages and to consider handing over Gaza’s civil administration to a temporary body of Palestinian technocrats. 

Yet this handover would occur only under “national consensus” — Hamas’s shorthand for maintaining influence and veto power. 

Crucially, the group remains silent on the core issues that make peace credible: no commitment to disarmament, no international security oversight, and no acceptance of being excluded from Gaza’s future power structure. 

As one Israeli official observed this week, “Hamas wants legitimacy without the cost of accountability.” 

The exception nobody else receives 

The world has not asked the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, or Boko Haram to “partially accept” peace terms. 

But for Hamas, the rules seem different. The same terror organization responsible for suicide bombings, rocket attacks, and hostage-taking is once again treated as a necessary interlocutor — as though its participation were a condition for peace rather than an obstacle to it. 

Granting Hamas such legitimacy sends a dangerous signal: that terrorism, if persistent enough, earns a political dividend. 

A record written in violations 

Every ceasefire with Hamas since 2006 has collapsed in the same way — rockets, tunnels, and renewed violence. 

Each truce has served as a tactical pause to regroup and rearm. The group’s leaders openly boast about replenishing arsenals even as they sign humanitarian understandings. 

“Hamas doesn’t want peace,” a retired Israeli officer remarked. “It wants time — to rebuild, to rewrite the headlines, to re-enter the next round stronger.” 

Today’s rhetoric about “national defense structures” is simply the latest euphemism for keeping its brigades intact under a different label. 

Israeli politics: another layer of risk 

Inside Israel, far-right factions have already denounced the Trump plan as appeasement. Ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich insist that any contact with Hamas “rewards terror.” 

Their opposition leaves Prime Minister Netanyahu squeezed between Washington’s expectations and the hardliners who keep his coalition afloat. 

Even if Israel accepts a temporary ceasefire framework, domestic fractures could make implementation politically impossible. 

The mirage of progress 

For weary diplomats, any movement can look like momentum. But Hamas’s gestures should be read for what they are: tactics, not transformation. 

The terror group has mastered the art of appearing pragmatic abroad while maintaining absolutism at home — a duality that has trapped Gaza in endless repetition of violence and ruin. 

By validating Hamas’s “partial” compliance, the international community risks cementing that cycle once again. Peace cannot emerge from selective morality. 

A familiar warning 

The desire for resolution is human, but history is relentless. 

Every time the world mistakes Hamas’s tactical flexibility for ideological change, the result is the same: broken promises, shattered truces, and renewed war. 

Until that lesson is learned, Gaza’s tragedy — and Israel’s insecurity — will remain the most predictable story in the Middle East.