Hamas backs talks on end to Gaza war

A senior Hamas official outlines terms for ending the Gaza war and handing governance to a technocratic Palestinian body, signaling openness to renewed diplomacy with Trump.

Hamas Pushes for a Fair Deal as Talks Resume with Trump

Basem Naim, a senior Hamas official, told Drop Site that Hamas is open to a partial ceasefire or a broader deal if it ends the Gaza war and allows humanitarian relief to flow. Regional mediators in the United States, Egypt and Qatar are attempting to revive the 60-month framework after recent talks stalled. Hamas has not participated directly in ongoing Doha discussions, but mediators say talks focus on a ceasefire, hostage and detainee releases, and humanitarian access.

Naim detailed a plan for a 15-member technocratic administration in Gaza, overseen by the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority for an initial six months. He said the goal is to unify Gaza with the West Bank, pursue elections, and eventually establish an independent Palestinian state. He stressed that Hamas would hand over governance if there is credible transition to statehood and a lasting end to the war, while warning that talks must be real and not used as cover for other aims. He added that Israel and the United States must demonstrate genuine commitment to ending the conflict rather than pursuing other objectives.

Hamas has proposed amendments to the 60-day ceasefire framework and said it would release some captives in exchange for humanitarian relief and a pathway to reconstruction, but indicated Israel has yet to respond officially. Naim noted the talks occur without direct Hamas participation and warned that escalation would be dangerous while regional mediators keep pressure on both sides to return to the table.

Hamas is using public diplomacy to reframe the conflict as a political problem with a potential path to statehood, not a simple security contest. The focus on a technocratic Gaza administration signals a shift toward governance reforms as a condition for any durable deal. Yet the gap between Hamas’s terms and Israel’s demands remains wide, and the absence of direct Hamas engagement in negotiations raises questions about the legitimacy and enforceability of any agreement.

The piece also highlights the tricky role of regional mediators who push for an all or nothing settlement while trying to address humanitarian needs. The push for a unity framework in Palestine could reshape internal politics if a credible elections process emerges, but it rests on a fragile balance of power, legitimacy, and regional support. If the talks stall again, the risk of renewed violence or a protracted stalemate grows.

Highlights

A convincing peace path will need credible governance, real safety guarantees, and measurable humanitarian progress.