The true intent of Hamas in the ‘negotiations’

The recent announcement by Khalil al-Hayya, one of Hamas’s emerging leaders in Gaza, claiming the terrorist group’s willingness to negotiate a full ceasefire and the complete withdrawal of Israeli Defense Forces from Gaza, should not be seen as a sign of pragmatism but rather as a desperate tactic in response to mounting internal and external pressures. Despite the surreal international support that this death-driven organization continues to receive, Hamas’s strategy remains unchanged: to manipulate the global narrative, buy time to rebuild their armed network, and ultimately maintain some degree of power over whatever is left of Gaza.
Clarity is essential in understanding this matter: Hamas’s sudden interest in speeding up the release of hostages is not a gesture of goodwill but driven by two key factors. The first factor is the hostage situation, which has unmistakably highlighted a troubling reality that Israel’s traditional critics can no longer ignore. The images of Or Levy, Ohad Ben Ami, and Eli Sharabi—emaciated and on the brink of collapse—evoked the suffering of Holocaust survivors, further damaging Hamas’s already tarnished reputation. Adding to this is the alleged return of the bodies of the Bibas family, particularly that of little Kfir, kidnapped at just nine months old. Far from an act of humanity, this move seeks to mitigate the negative media impact Hamas has accrued. It is outrageous that Hamas would expect the return of dead bodies to be seen as a sign of goodwill—this logic is as perverse as a murderer seeking clemency for returning his victim’s body to justice.

As part of this calculated strategy, Hamas has scheduled the delivery of the human remains for Thursday, February 20, followed by the release of six living hostages two days later. The implicit message is clear: a cynical attempt to divert attention from its brutality and regain some control over the narrative. However, it cannot be overlooked that the group has previously lied about the deaths of hostages who, in reality, were still alive. It would be an ironic glimmer of hope if the same pattern were to repeat itself, and some of the bodies Hamas intends to deliver turn out to be living people.

The second factor behind Hamas’s sudden “flexibility” is the growing internal hostility in Gaza. While many international media outlets remain silent on this issue—because Palestinian suffering that cannot be directly blamed on Israel seems to lack the same level of interest—the Gazan population has begun to express its frustration. The devastation in northern Gaza has rendered the enclave nearly uninhabitable, and the lack of concrete solutions for reconstruction has only exacerbated the anger of civilians, who watch as Hamas clings to its rhetoric of resistance while they suffer the consequences. The terrorist group’s inability to offer shelter, medical care, or even a minimal interest in improving the living conditions of Gazans has fostered discontent that could turn into a local uprising. In Khan Younis, for instance, armed groups like Al-Nasser Salah Ad-Din and Mujahidin Al-Falestin may become more uncontrollable, thereby threatening Hamas’s already fragile hegemony.

In this context, Hamas’s bet is evident: to force Israel to accept the “second phase” of the so-called negotiations, which would involve the complete withdrawal of the Israeli Defense Forces and an indefinite ceasefire. In practice, this would be nothing more than a strategic breather for Hamas to reorganize and rearm itself to continue extorting Israel. However, Israel faces an inescapable dilemma. If Netanyahu’s government succumbs to Hamas’s demands, it risks internal collapse under pressure from religious Zionist factions, who have already warned that any concession would be a betrayal of the sacrifices made in this war. On the other hand, if Israel refuses to accept the terms imposed by the terrorist group, Hamas will likely exploit this refusal as a propaganda tool to undermine Israel’s international image—and it will probably succeed. Ultimately, this is a calculated game where Hamas, with absolute brazenness, seeks to position itself as the “peace-seeking” party, forcing Israel into a political and diplomatic crossroads.

Nevertheless, one key element could alter the equation: the stance of the United States. While the Biden administration previously pressured Israel to moderate its actions, the situation with Donald Trump in the White House is opposed. On more than one occasion, Washington has made it clear that whatever decision Israel makes, it will have its backing. This sets the stage for a significant strategic possibility: a total offensive on Gaza without the constraints of international pressure, allowing for a conclusive resolution to the current escalation.

Alongside this shift in the international context, Israel has also adjusted its internal strategy. The recent reconfiguration of the negotiating team is evidence that the War Cabinet’s stance is hardening. The replacement of the heads of Mossad and Shin Bet with Ron Dermer, a man aligned with Netanyahu and Trump’s vision, signals that Israel has no intention of yielding to Hamas’s harmful demands. Dermer is not a negotiator of concessions; he is a strategist who understands that any respite granted to Hamas will only prolong the conflict. He is unconcerned with foreign or media approval. Dermer’s appointment is a clear signal that the objective remains the complete dismantling of Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure in Gaza, alongside forcing the terrorists to release the innocent hostages they hold.

In this scenario, the central question is not whether Hamas is truly willing to negotiate in good faith—because it is not—but whether Israel will seize this moment to eliminate, once and for all, the threat posed by having a radical Islamic, terrorist neighbor on its border. The reality is that Hamas is not seeking peace or stability in Gaza, but its survival. Israel’s strategy cannot be built on the illusion that its enemy has changed; it must be built on the certainty that any ceasefire that does not lead to Hamas’s total eradication will only delay the next round of violence.

It may sound absurd to state it, but the underlying point is undeniable: the International Community, in its obsession with pressuring Israel, must ask itself whether it is willing to allow a terrorist group to continue manipulating public opinion to perpetuate its rule over Gaza. As long as Hamas exists, peace will remain nothing more than a convenient fiction for those who prefer to evade reality. The only clear and effective solution remains the same: Israel’s total victory over terrorism.