Recent developments in Gaza ceasefire negotiations have revealed deep fractures between Hamas and US mediators, with the Palestinian resistance movement rejecting what it characterizes as a fundamentally flawed proposal that fails to guarantee an end to Israel’s military campaign. The breakdown in talks exposes the continuing challenges in achieving lasting peace, as Hamas officials argue that American mediation has consistently favored Israeli interests while offering Palestinians only temporary respites without addressing core demands for permanent ceasefire and complete withdrawal of Israeli forces.
The Latest Breakdown in Ceasefire Negotiations
The most recent impasse in Gaza ceasefire talks emerged in late May 2025, when conflicting reports surfaced about Hamas’s response to a US-mediated proposal. According to sources, Hamas initially appeared to accept a framework calling for a 60-day ceasefire and the release of 10 Israeli captives in two stages1. However, this apparent agreement quickly unraveled when US officials dismissed Hamas’s position as “completely unacceptable” and “disappointing”1.
Steve Witkoff, the US Middle East envoy, reportedly reached what seemed like a consensus with Hamas during meetings in Doha, Qatar. The proposed deal would have included a 60-day ceasefire, the release of captives, withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, and unconditional humanitarian aid access from day one1. Despite these seemingly comprehensive terms, American officials quickly distanced themselves from the arrangement, with Witkoff rejecting the notion that Hamas had genuinely accepted his proposal1.
The confusion surrounding the negotiations highlights the complex dynamics at play in these diplomatic efforts. While Hamas sources indicated agreement to the framework, US officials characterized the Palestinian group’s response as fundamentally inadequate. This disconnect between initial reports and subsequent rejections underscores the fragile nature of the mediation process and the deep mistrust between the parties involved.
Hamas officials have subsequently clarified their position, emphasizing that their response to the US proposal included significant amendments that address what they view as fundamental flaws in the American framework. Speaking to Al Jazeera, Basem Naim, head of Hamas’s political and international relations bureau, explained that the group had submitted its response seeking crucial modifications to ensure the proposal could serve as a genuine foundation for ending the conflict2.
Hamas’s Core Objections to the US Framework
Hamas’s rejection of the latest US proposal centers on what the organization characterizes as the deal’s failure to provide meaningful guarantees for ending the war and addressing Palestinian demands. According to Naim, the fundamental problem lies in the proposal’s lack of concrete commitments to achieve a permanent ceasefire and complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza2.
The Palestinian resistance movement argues that the US framework fails to guarantee even basic elements of the proposed 60-day temporary ceasefire. Hamas officials contend that the proposal does not ensure the sustained flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, instead legitimizing Israeli plans for aid distribution that have been rejected by the international community, including the United Nations2. This criticism highlights Hamas’s view that the US proposal essentially codifies Israeli control over Gaza’s humanitarian lifeline rather than establishing independent channels for assistance.
Perhaps most significantly, Hamas objects to the proposal’s treatment of Israeli military presence in Gaza. Rather than requiring complete withdrawal of Israeli forces, the framework only calls for “redeployment” of troops within the territory2. This distinction is crucial for Hamas, which views any continued Israeli military presence as incompatible with genuine sovereignty and self-determination for Palestinians in Gaza.
The organization also criticizes the proposal’s approach to long-term negotiations. According to Hamas officials, the US framework provides no guarantees that the 60-day temporary ceasefire would lead to permanent peace or complete Israeli withdrawal. Instead, it requires Palestinians to engage in fresh negotiations about redeployment plans within the ceasefire period, essentially restarting the diplomatic process without having achieved any of their core objectives2.
Hamas’s position reflects a broader skepticism about American mediation efforts, with officials arguing that the US consistently presents proposals that favor Israeli interests while asking Palestinians to make concessions without receiving corresponding guarantees. This dynamic, they contend, perpetuates a cycle of temporary agreements that ultimately serve to legitimize continued Israeli control over Palestinian territories.
Historical Context of Failed Ceasefire Attempts
The current breakdown in negotiations follows a pattern of failed ceasefire attempts that Hamas attributes to fundamental imbalances in the mediation process. Previous Israeli proposals have consistently included demands that Palestinian officials characterize as unacceptable, particularly requirements for Hamas to disarm as a precondition for peace3.
In April 2025, Israel presented a proposal calling for a 45-day temporary ceasefire in exchange for the release of 11 Israeli captives, but this offer included explicit demands for Hamas disarmament3. Senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri rejected this condition categorically, stating that “as long as there is an occupation, the resistance will continue” and describing disarmament demands as “not just a red line, it is a million red lines”3.
These historical precedents inform Hamas’s current skepticism about US mediation efforts. The organization argues that American proposals consistently fail to address the root causes of the conflict while asking Palestinians to surrender their means of resistance without guaranteeing an end to Israeli occupation. This pattern, Hamas contends, reveals the fundamentally flawed nature of the current diplomatic approach.
The resistance movement’s position is that genuine peace requires addressing core issues including complete Israeli withdrawal, recognition of Palestinian sovereignty, and guarantees against future military aggression. From this perspective, proposals that offer only temporary ceasefires while maintaining Israeli military capabilities and presence in Palestinian territories cannot serve as foundations for lasting peace.
Hamas officials also point to Israel’s public statements about long-term plans for Gaza as evidence that current proposals are designed to facilitate continued occupation rather than genuine peace. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently rejected Hamas demands for permanent ceasefire, promising to continue the conflict until achieving “total victory” against the Palestinian group1.
Accusations of American Bias Toward Israel
Hamas’s critique of US mediation extends beyond specific proposal terms to encompass broader accusations of systematic American bias in favor of Israel. Palestinian officials argue that the United States has demonstrated “undeniable complicity” in Israeli actions in Gaza through continued military and diplomatic support4. This perceived bias, they contend, fundamentally undermines America’s credibility as a neutral mediator in peace negotiations.
The resistance movement points to continued US military aid to Israel even as diplomatic efforts proceed as evidence of this bias. Despite rhetorical calls for restraint, the Biden administration has maintained substantial military and diplomatic support for the Israeli government throughout the conflict4. Hamas argues that this support effectively gives Israel leverage to reject Palestinian demands while knowing that American backing will continue regardless of diplomatic outcomes.
Former US government officials have themselves criticized American policy, with twelve resigned officials warning that Washington’s support for Israel has created “undeniable complicity in the killings and forced starvation of a besieged Palestinian population in Gaza”4. These officials characterized US policy as “not only morally reprehensible and in clear violation of international humanitarian law and US laws, but it has also put a target on America’s back”4.
Hamas leverages these internal American criticisms to support their argument that US mediation is fundamentally compromised by political commitments to Israel that supersede genuine peacemaking efforts. The organization contends that meaningful progress requires either genuine American neutrality or alternative mediation mechanisms that do not carry the same pro-Israeli bias.
The perceived American bias extends to the structure of ceasefire proposals themselves. Hamas officials argue that US frameworks consistently ask Palestinians to make immediate, concrete concessions while offering only vague promises about future Israeli behavior. This asymmetry, they contend, reflects American prioritization of Israeli security concerns over Palestinian rights and sovereignty.
Palestinian negotiators also point to the timing and presentation of US proposals as evidence of bias. They argue that American mediators present new frameworks that diverge from previously agreed-upon terms whenever Israel objects to specific provisions, effectively giving the Israeli government veto power over the entire process while denying Palestinians similar influence.
The Question of Legitimizing Israeli Control
A central theme in Hamas’s criticism of the current US proposal concerns what the organization views as efforts to legitimize ongoing Israeli control over Gaza through diplomatic agreements. Hamas argues that by accepting frameworks that permit continued Israeli military presence and control over humanitarian aid distribution, Palestinians would essentially be ratifying the occupation they are fighting to end2.
The aid distribution issue exemplifies this concern. The US proposal reportedly legitimizes Israeli plans for controlling humanitarian assistance to Gaza, despite international criticism of these arrangements2. Hamas contends that accepting such terms would effectively surrender Palestinian authority over their own territory’s humanitarian needs, creating a precedent for permanent Israeli oversight of Gaza’s basic functions.
This criticism extends to the proposal’s approach to territorial control more broadly. By calling for “redeployment” rather than “withdrawal” of Israeli forces, Hamas argues that the framework essentially asks Palestinians to accept a reorganized occupation rather than genuine liberation2. From their perspective, this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of Palestinian demands and objectives.
The resistance movement frames this issue in terms of sovereignty and self-determination. They argue that any agreement that permits continued Israeli control over Palestinian territory, whether through direct military presence or oversight of essential services, violates basic principles of national independence and dignity. Accepting such terms, they contend, would legitimize the very system of control they are fighting to dismantle.
Hamas also expresses concern that temporary agreements containing these provisions could become permanent through diplomatic inertia. They worry that once Israeli control mechanisms are established through a ceasefire agreement, removing them through subsequent negotiations would prove extremely difficult, effectively making temporary concessions into permanent surrenders of sovereignty.
This perspective reflects broader Palestinian concerns about the cumulative effect of interim agreements that fail to address core issues. Hamas argues that repeated acceptance of frameworks that preserve Israeli advantages while asking Palestinians to make concessions has historically led to the institutionalization of occupation rather than progress toward genuine peace.
The Humanitarian Crisis and Negotiation Leverage
The dire humanitarian situation in Gaza adds complex layers to ceasefire negotiations, with Hamas facing pressure to accept imperfect agreements to alleviate immediate suffering while maintaining that inadequate frameworks will not produce lasting solutions. The organization acknowledges the desperate conditions facing Gaza’s two million residents while arguing that accepting flawed agreements would ultimately perpetuate rather than resolve the crisis1.
Medical personnel in Gaza report that at least 81 individuals, many children, died from Israeli attacks on a single day during the recent negotiations, bringing the total death toll to 53,977 with approximately 122,966 injured1. These casualty figures, combined with widespread famine conditions resulting from the Israeli blockade, create enormous pressure on Palestinian negotiators to accept any agreement that might provide immediate relief.
Hamas officials recognize this humanitarian imperative while maintaining that their responsibility extends to ensuring that any agreement creates sustainable foundations for ending the conflict. They argue that accepting proposals that fail to address root causes would provide only temporary relief while establishing precedents that make genuine resolution more difficult to achieve2.
The organization points to the limited effectiveness of previous humanitarian arrangements as evidence supporting their position. Despite some easing of the Israeli blockade that has allowed approximately 170 aid trucks into Gaza, humanitarian officials report that this assistance remains far from sufficient to address the needs of the enclave’s population after extended siege conditions1.
Hamas’s position is that meaningful humanitarian relief requires addressing the underlying political and military dynamics that create crisis conditions in the first place. From this perspective, agreements that provide limited aid access while maintaining Israeli military control and siege capabilities fail to address the structural causes of Palestinian suffering.
The resistance movement also argues that the international community’s focus on immediate humanitarian relief, while understandable, can inadvertently pressure Palestinians to accept inadequate political frameworks. They contend that sustainable humanitarian improvement requires political agreements that address Israeli military presence, blockade policies, and broader questions of Palestinian sovereignty.
International Community Response and Support
Hamas’s rejection of the US proposal occurs within a broader context of international debate about appropriate responses to the Gaza conflict and the effectiveness of current mediation efforts. The organization points to various forms of international support for Palestinian positions as evidence that their demands reflect broader global consensus rather than unreasonable extremism.
The resistance movement highlights criticism from international humanitarian organizations regarding Israeli aid distribution plans as validation of their concerns about legitimizing occupation control mechanisms2. When Hamas rejects proposals that endorse these arrangements, they frame their position as alignment with international humanitarian law and United Nations principles rather than obstruction of peace efforts.
Support from various international actors provides Hamas with alternatives to US-mediated frameworks that they argue might prove more effective in achieving genuine peace. The organization has expressed willingness to engage with Arab League-supported reconstruction plans and other international initiatives that they view as more balanced than American proposals1.
Hamas also draws legitimacy from widespread international protests against Israeli conduct in Gaza and criticism of American policy from various quarters4. The organization argues that global opinion increasingly recognizes the inadequacy of current diplomatic approaches and the need for more fundamental changes in international engagement with the conflict.
The resistance movement’s international outreach efforts reflect their belief that effective peace mediation requires genuinely neutral parties rather than actors with strong political commitments to one side of the conflict. They advocate for expanded roles for actors they view as more balanced, including various Arab and international organizations that do not carry the same historical baggage as US mediation efforts.
International legal perspectives also factor into Hamas’s position, with the organization arguing that various international legal principles support their demands for complete withdrawal and sovereignty recognition. They contend that accepting frameworks that fall short of these principles would legitimize violations of international law and create dangerous precedents for other conflict situations globally.
Religious and Cultural Dimensions of Resistance
The conflict in Gaza carries deep religious and cultural significance that shapes Hamas’s approach to negotiations and their rejection of proposals they view as inadequate. The organization draws on Islamic principles of resistance to occupation and protection of sacred land to justify their negotiating positions and explain their unwillingness to accept frameworks that they argue violate fundamental religious obligations5.
Hamas frames their resistance in terms of religious duty and divine obligation, arguing that acceptance of continued occupation would violate Islamic principles requiring Muslims to defend their land and communities. This religious framework provides moral justification for maintaining firm negotiating positions even in the face of immediate humanitarian pressures and international criticism.
The spiritual dimension of Palestinian resistance has been particularly evident during the current conflict, with residents of Gaza demonstrating remarkable faith and resilience despite extreme suffering5. Hamas points to this spiritual strength as evidence that their negotiating positions reflect deep cultural and religious commitments rather than mere political calculations.
Islamic scholars and religious authorities have provided various forms of support for Palestinian resistance efforts, contributing to Hamas’s confidence in their moral and religious standing. The organization argues that their rejection of inadequate ceasefire proposals reflects not only political strategy but also religious obligation to maintain sacred trusts and defend Islamic land.
The religious framework also shapes Hamas’s understanding of acceptable compromise and negotiation parameters. The organization argues that certain concessions, particularly those that would legitimize permanent occupation or compromise Islamic sovereignty over sacred sites, cross religious red lines that cannot be violated regardless of practical pressures.
This spiritual dimension provides Hamas with sources of legitimacy and motivation that extend beyond immediate political calculations. The organization draws strength from their understanding of their struggle as part of a broader Islamic resistance to occupation and injustice, placing their negotiating positions within a framework of divine obligation and historical precedent.
Conclusion
The breakdown in Gaza ceasefire negotiations reveals fundamental problems with current diplomatic approaches that prioritize temporary arrangements over addressing root causes of the conflict. Hamas’s rejection of the latest US proposal reflects their assessment that American mediation has consistently favored Israeli interests while asking Palestinians to accept frameworks that legitimize continued occupation and control.
The resistance movement’s demands for guaranteed war cessation, complete Israeli withdrawal, and genuine sovereignty recognition represent core principles that they argue cannot be compromised through incremental agreements that fail to address these fundamental issues. Their criticism of American bias and Israeli favoritism in the mediation process highlights the need for more balanced international engagement that genuinely prioritizes peace over political commitments to particular parties.
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza creates enormous pressure for immediate agreement, but Hamas maintains that accepting inadequate frameworks would ultimately perpetuate rather than resolve the underlying causes of Palestinian suffering. Their position reflects a strategic assessment that sustainable peace requires addressing political and military dynamics rather than simply managing humanitarian symptoms of continued conflict.
International support for Palestinian positions and criticism of current mediation approaches provide Hamas with alternatives to US-dominated frameworks and validation for their negotiating stance. The organization’s integration of religious and cultural principles into their political positions reflects the deep spiritual dimensions of Palestinian resistance that transcend immediate tactical considerations.
Moving forward, achieving genuine peace will likely require fundamental changes in international mediation approaches that address Palestinian concerns about bias and legitimization of occupation. Hamas’s rejection of current proposals signals their commitment to comprehensive solutions rather than temporary arrangements that fail to resolve core issues driving the conflict.
