Recently, Hamas abruptly announced its rejection of all existing ceasefire agreements, while proposing a new package that includes details of a phased ceasefire and a hostage exchange. This decision has attracted a lot of attention internationally, especially with the larger geopolitical game that may be involved behind it. What is at stake is the future of the Gaza region and could affect the stability of the entire Middle East region.
A recent piece of news has put the international community's attention back on the sudden announcement by the Hamas group in the Middle East that it is rejecting all existing ceasefire agreements. As soon as this news came out, it immediately caused an uproar around the world. Hamas rejected a ceasefire and proposed a new, detailed three-phase ceasefire package that was very different from any previous agreement.
In the new proposal, Hamas calls for a temporary ceasefire for the next 42 days, on the condition that Israeli forces fully withdraw from the line of separation in Gaza. This demand is shocking enough, and it directly demands that the Israeli army relinquish direct control of Gaza, which is difficult for Israel to accept.
In the second phase, Hamas proposed a permanent ceasefire. The exact terms of this "permanent ceasefire" have not been disclosed in detail, raising speculation about the complex agenda behind it. The third stage is about the exchange of hostages and captives. Hamas has offered Israel the freedom of 30 Hamas members for each hostage released. When it comes to Israeli female soldiers, that number rises to 50 Hamas members. In addition, Hamas has made a point of calling for the release of 30 of its key members.
As soon as this proposal came out, the international perception of Hamas became even more complicated. On the one hand, this looks like an extreme demand that is almost impossible for Israel to accept, and on the other hand, Hamas seems to be demonstrating its toughness and tactics in the negotiations, trying to change the balance of the negotiations by making high demands.
At the same time that all this is happening, Iran declares war, which further complicates the whole situation. Israel has thus delayed its military operations in the Rafah area of Gaza. Clearly, Hamas is exploiting this tension in the region to increase its bargaining power. They believe that with the support of countries such as Iran, they will be able to achieve full control of Gaza internally through armed forces, with strong external assistance.
Similarly, Israel is in a difficult situation, with the Israeli army's technical and equipment superiority in fact and its limited physical control over Gaza. The presence of the Israeli army in Gaza is mainly demonstrated by air strikes, and they rarely send ground troops to be there for long periods of time, mainly because of concerns about possible casualties. This strategy has led to more nominal and non-physical control of Gaza.
At the same time, the day-to-day management of Gaza remains largely controlled by Hamas members or persons associated with Hamas. This situation has greatly limited Israel's influence in Gaza, which nominally controls the area but in reality finds it difficult to manage effectively.
Against this backdrop, Hamas's new proposal is a great challenge to Israel and a test for the international community. It is a test of the international community's ability to respond to the continuing instability in the Middle East and to resolve it. Hamas's hard-line stance, and their apparent tactical adjustments, show that they are not only fighting militarily, but also seeking greater influence and voice in the political and international arenas.
Hamas's proposals, if implemented, will inevitably reshape the political landscape in Gaza and the Middle East as a whole. This change will affect Israel and Hamas, as well as the foreign policy of several countries, including the United States, Russia, and Iran.
In addition, Hamas's proposed quid pro quo, especially for Israeli female soldiers, has drawn international attention and discussion on the rights of prisoners of war. Is this differential quid pro quo fair, and does it contravene the principle of equal treatment of prisoners of war in international law? These are all issues that the international community needs to face.
At this point, Hamas's new strategy is not just a simple military or political proposal, it is actually a complex game of power, morality, law and geopolitics. Every decision and action affects the future of the Gaza region and could change the political landscape of the Middle East and the world as a whole.