1.Core content and background of the agreement
Key concessions of Hamas
The ceasefire agreement proposed by Hamas contains three core conditions:
Full release of detainees: including all remaining Israeli citizens and soldiers. This is the first time that Hamas has promised to “unconditionally release all detainees” since the conflict.
Full withdrawal of Israeli troops: requiring the Israeli army to withdraw completely from the Gaza Strip and restore the military control line before the conflict in October 2023.
Gaza governance mechanism: It is proposed to establish an international committee with the participation of Egypt, Qatar, the United States and others to manage the security and reconstruction of the Gaza Strip and ensure unimpeded access to humanitarian aid.
Israel’s military pressure and political considerations
Despite Hamas’s goodwill, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched a new round of air strikes on Gaza on April 26, killing at least 49 people and injuring 108 people. Israeli Chief of Staff Zamir threatened that if Hamas did not release the detainees as soon as possible, it would launch “more intense attacks.” The Israeli government’s tough attitude is closely related to its domestic politics: the right-wing ruling coalition insists on the position of “completely eliminating Hamas”, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it clear that the ceasefire must be based on the “demilitarization of Gaza”.
2. International mediation and regional response
Egypt’s key role
As the main mediator, Egypt has facilitated multiple rounds of secret negotiations between Hamas and Israel. The proposal of this agreement marks the phased results of Egypt’s diplomatic efforts, but its feasibility still depends on Israel’s final response. After the announcement of the agreement, Egyptian President Sisi emphasized that “a ceasefire is the only way to ease the humanitarian crisis in Gaza” and called on the international community to support the implementation of the agreement.
Differences in the US position
The US government has not yet made an official statement, but officials from the White House National Security Council revealed that the Biden administration cautiously welcomed Hamas’s proposal, while asking Israel to “exercise restraint.” However, the US military support for Israel has not been affected, and the Israeli army has recently received precision-guided bombs and drone accessories provided by the United States.
Contradictory mentality of Arab countries
Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar have expressed support for the agreement, but require Israel to lift the blockade of Gaza at the same time. As a major supporter of Hamas, Iran did not directly oppose the ceasefire, but stressed that “resistance is the legitimate right of the Palestinians.”
III. Potential obstacles to the implementation of the agreement
Israel’s security demands
Israel requires Hamas to “disarm” and transfer control of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority (PA) before the ceasefire. This demand is in fundamental conflict with Hamas’s insistence on “retaining self-defense capabilities.” In addition, Israeli right-wing parties (such as National Security Minister Ben-Gvir) have threatened to withdraw from the ruling coalition if the government accepts the agreement.
Humanitarian crisis in Gaza
The United Nations World Food Program (WFP) warned that food reserves in the Gaza Strip have been exhausted and about 2.3 million residents are at risk of famine. Hamas demanded that Israel immediately open the Rafah crossing to allow international aid to enter, but the Israeli side delayed on the grounds of “security inspection.”
Internal rifts in Hamas
There are differences within Hamas over the ceasefire agreement. Senior official Osama Hamdan stressed that “Hamas will not lay down its arms as long as the Israeli occupation exists”, while members of the delegation prefer to negotiate for breathing space. Such internal divisions may weaken the effectiveness of the implementation of the agreement.
IV. Historical experience and future prospects
The fragility of the ceasefire agreement
The Palestinian and Israeli sides reached a ceasefire agreement in January 2025, but it broke down because Israel refused to release Palestinian prisoners. Whether this agreement can last depends on the following factors:
International monitoring mechanism: A joint monitoring group composed of Egypt, Qatar and the United States needs to be established to ensure that both sides fulfill their commitments.
Phased implementation: Hamas requires a ceasefire and withdrawal at the same time, while Israel advocates “releasing hostages first and then withdrawing troops.”
Economic reconstruction plan: The Gaza reconstruction plan proposed by Arab countries (such as the “New Gaza Plan” led by Saudi Arabia) needs to be linked to the ceasefire agreement to improve people’s livelihood and reduce the causes of conflict.
Israel’s strategic dilemma
Although the Israeli army has a military advantage, the long-term occupation of Gaza has led to a deterioration of its international image and continued escalation of domestic anti-war protests. If the agreement breaks down, Israel may face greater diplomatic isolation and military consumption.
Hamas’s survival strategy
Hamas’s support rate in Gaza has declined due to the humanitarian crisis, and its proposal for a ceasefire is aimed at gaining international aid and reorganizing its military forces. If the agreement is reached, Hamas may exchange “demilitarization” for economic reconstruction in Gaza, thereby consolidating its political position.
V. China’s position and suggestions
China has always advocated the “two-state solution” and supports the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with full sovereignty based on the 1967 borders and East Jerusalem as its capital. In response to the current situation, China calls for:
Immediate ceasefire and end of war: avoid more civilian casualties and create conditions for negotiations.
Lift the blockade: ensure unimpeded access to Gaza for humanitarian supplies.
Restart peace talks: promote Palestine and Israel to resolve disputes through political negotiations on the basis of the principle of “land for peace”.
Coordination of the international community: The UN Security Council should play a leading role in formulating a comprehensive, fair and lasting solution.
Conclusion
Hamas’ ceasefire proposal provides a rare opportunity to ease the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but whether it can be turned into reality still depends on Israel’s political will and the joint efforts of the international community. At present, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has reached a critical point, and any delay will pay a heavier price. The international community should seize the opportunity to promote the two sides to achieve lasting peace on the basis of mutual understanding and accommodation.
