Before Hamas officially announced its approval of the proposal by U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, which calls for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, the Israeli media had already gone on the offensive. Citing a “senior Israeli official,” reports declared that Hamas’s response was “unacceptable to any government.” The framing was clear: Israel was presented as having nothing to do with the terms—positioning the proposal as a Hamas initiative, despite the fact that the draft was developed in coordination with U.S. negotiators.
The confusion only deepened after Hamas’s official announcement. Not only did Israeli officials deny agreeing to the plan, but Witkoff himself claimed he was “disappointed” in Hamas for “not accepting” his proposal.
Eventually, the truth emerged: the proposal Hamas agreed to was not the same draft that Israel had signed off on. Instead, it was a modified version of Witkoff’s original framework—negotiated and refined directly with the Americans, particularly via Palestinian-American businessman Bshara Bahbah.
One Proposal, Two Versions — and a Storm of Misinformation
This diplomatic sleight of hand points to deeper political manipulation. Israeli statements, as well as those attributed to Witkoff, obscured the fact that the revised proposal Hamas accepted was the product of U.S.-led negotiations, not a unilateral demand by the resistance.
Hamas, for its part, entered the negotiations with two core priorities:
-
- Ending the siege and starvation campaign imposed on Gaza, where Palestinians face systematic genocide, forced displacement, and collective punishment under the Israeli assault branded “Operation Gideon’s Chariots.”
-
- Securing a permanent ceasefire, rather than falling into the trap of temporary truces designed to drain Gaza’s population and resistance of strength—a tactic previously exploited by Israel and the U.S. to extract prisoners from Hamas and then resume the war.
Netanyahu himself recently revealed that Israel’s true goal goes far beyond recovering captives. It includes disarming Hamas, exiling its leaders, reoccupying Gaza, and ultimately depopulating it in line with the so-called “Trump Plan.”
A New Negotiation Track: Direct Talks with Washington
This phase of negotiation is significant in that it has occurred directly with the U.S., not via Israel through intermediaries. This shift introduces unprecedented ambiguity into the process—partly because Washington is both a primary party to the war and a conflicted actor divided between pro-Zionist hawks and factions seeking de-escalation.
What became clear is that the version of the plan Hamas agreed to was not the Israeli-edited draft. For example, an Israeli version presented in April offered a partial truce in exchange for the release of 10 Israeli captives, including deceased bodies—without guarantees of a permanent ceasefire. Hamas refused this version outright.
However, due to international abandonment of Gaza, unrelenting genocide, and the complete absence of meaningful regional pressure, Hamas agreed to adopt the U.S.-mediated draft as a foundation for further negotiations.
What Did Hamas Actually Agree To?
Under the revised terms, Hamas agreed to release 10 Israeli prisoners in two batches, rather than all at once—a safeguard against Israel ending the truce immediately after securing its captives.
The U.S. provided guarantees that negotiations for a permanent ceasefire would continue during the temporary truce, with discussions covering the so-called “day after the war” scenario, as labelled by Washington and Tel Aviv. As long as these talks remain active, the ceasefire would remain in effect.
Israel Rejects It—Before the Announcement
Tellingly, Israel rejected the amended version even before Hamas publicly announced its approval. Hamas’s announcement was intended to pre-empt Netanyahu’s spin and prevent him from framing the proposal as one-sided.
Still, Netanyahu’s team publicly dismissed the deal, calling it a “Hamas proposal”—despite the fact that it was developed through American mediation.
Witkoff’s U-Turn and U.S. Contradictions
Witkoff, in a statement to Axios, claimed Hamas “disappointed” him by not agreeing to the plan—despite his direct involvement in its revisions and greenlighting its content before it was presented to the Israelis.
His reversal appears to reflect either a diplomatic maneuver, or ongoing power struggles inside the Trump administration, which remains split between:
-
- Those backing Netanyahu’s policy of total annihilation and “eternal war”, and
-
- Those pushing for a negotiated exit strategy that salvages regional stability.
A Fragile Moment, But the Door Remains Open
Despite Witkoff’s public frustration, behind-the-scenes efforts continued. He and U.S. hostage envoy Adam Boehler reportedly met with the families of Israeli captives, expressing hope for progress within days. Even Donald Trump said he expected “good news,” while Netanyahu, in a surprising twist, voiced hope for a positive breakthrough.
However, in parallel, Israel approved the largest military reserve call-up since the war began—up to 450,000 reservists by August 31, 2025—signaling that its commitment to the battlefield remains uninterrupted.
War Continues as Talks Linger
This deployment cannot be dismissed as a bluff. It is not mere pressure tactics, but a continuation of Israel’s genocidal war strategy—with Operation Gideon’s Chariots proceeding at full force. The reserve mobilization allows Netanyahu to project strength to the Israeli public, thereby preserving the illusion that any eventual deal was achieved from a position of power.
But make no mistake: this is not a negotiation between equals.
Only one fact is certain: the genocide and starvation of Gaza continue, while the U.S. projects mixed signals—a dangerous echo of the Biden administration’s duplicity.
Until a formal agreement is signed, nothing is guaranteed. And until the bombs stop falling, no claim of progress is credible.
