As Washington pushes a 20‑point proposal demanding disarmament and leadership exit, the militant group seeks amendments while hardliners warn of ‘the end of the Palestinian cause’. Ramallah signals it is ready to work with the U.S.

Gaza City/Ramallah/Washington —

Hamas is grappling with a rare and public internal split over U.S. President Donald Trump’s push for a ceasefire-and-transition deal that would end nearly two years of war in the Gaza Strip. While the movement’s negotiators have asked mediators to amend key provisions—above all the method and sequencing of disarmament and the fate of senior leaders—figures aligned with the group’s hard line are warning that accepting the proposal would “finish the Palestinian cause,” according to officials and regional intermediaries familiar with the talks.

The U.S. blueprint, described by the White House as a comprehensive 20‑point plan and welcomed by several Arab states, has been accepted in principle by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It envisions a full release of the remaining hostages—U.S. officials say roughly four dozen—followed by a phased cessation of hostilities, Hamas’ verifiable disarmament, and a transitional administration backed by an Arab-led stabilization force. In return, Israel would undertake a gradual withdrawal from population centers and participate in a large-scale reconstruction effort, paired with prisoner releases and sustained humanitarian corridors.

What Hamas wants changed

Multiple people briefed on the Doha talks say Hamas has asked mediators in Qatar and Egypt to clarify or change several elements: the timeline and mechanisms for disarmament; security guarantees for mid‑ and senior‑level cadres; and whether exiled leaders would be permitted safe passage and residency abroad. The group also wants firmer language on a political horizon for Palestinians—up to and including a pathway to statehood—which Israel’s leadership continues to resist.

Negotiators say the movement’s political bureau has been split between those who argue that battlefield attrition and financial strain make a negotiated end unavoidable, and commanders who believe that conceding weapons and governance would erase the organization’s leverage and legacy. “The debate is existential,” said one person briefed on the internal discussions. “Pragmatists see a narrow window; hardliners see a trap.”

The plan, and the pressure

Trump’s proposal—circulated to regional capitals late last week—lays out a rapid exchange: Hamas would release all remaining hostages, including bodies, and commit to a verifiable, externally monitored disarmament, while Israel would free thousands of Palestinian prisoners and halt offensive operations. A temporary International Stabilization Force (ISF) drawn from Arab and Muslim countries would deploy to secure crossings, supervise de‑militarization, and train vetted Palestinian police. An interim civilian authority—variously described by U.S. officials as a “Board of Peace” or a technocratic administration—would run day‑to‑day governance, with outside oversight over customs revenues and aid flows.

Washington has paired the outline with a short fuse. U.S. officials say the offer is time‑bound to maintain momentum and to preempt spoilers on all sides. Trump publicly urged Hamas to respond within days, a deadline that negotiators say helped surface, and sharpen, the internal split.

A battered enclave

The humanitarian ledger remains dire. Gaza’s Health Ministry says more than 66,000 Palestinians have been killed and nearly 170,000 injured since the war began in October 2023, figures that cannot be independently verified but are widely cited by the United Nations and relief agencies. Israeli forces continue to strike targets in and around Gaza City while cautioning civilians to move south, even as sporadic rocket fire has resumed from pockets of militants. Aid groups report famine indicators in several districts and worsening displacement as families flee renewed bombardment and collapsing services.

Voices against, voices for

Within Hamas, officials close to the Gaza‑based military wing contend that surrendering heavy weapons and ceding control would amount to capitulation. “If we are forced into exile, the resistance will be decapitated and the cause betrayed,” said one senior figure, according to a mediator. By contrast, political operatives living abroad argue the movement must extract tangible gains while it still can—prisoner releases, a guaranteed end to airstrikes, and a role for Palestinian institutions in the transition. They also point to pressure from traditional allies such as Qatar and Turkey, along with quiet signals from Iran to avoid further regional escalation.

Ramallah steps in

The Palestinian Authority (PA), which governs parts of the occupied West Bank and has been sidelined throughout much of the war, has struck a notably different tone. In a statement this week, officials in Ramallah said they welcome the United States’ renewed engagement and are “ready to work” with Washington and regional partners on a comprehensive agreement. Behind the scenes, diplomats say the PA is lobbying for a lead role in any transitional administration—possibly via a reconstituted cabinet with technocratic figures and security chiefs acceptable to the Arab League.

Israel’s calibration

Prime Minister Netanyahu has endorsed the U.S. plan’s security pillars—disarmament of Hamas, long‑term demilitarization, and a de‑radicalization framework—while maintaining opposition to an explicit pathway to statehood. Israeli officials say any withdrawal would be strictly conditions‑based, tied to benchmarks verified by the ISF and international monitors. Within the war cabinet, the focus remains on retaining freedom of action against remaining militant cells and preventing a power vacuum that could be filled by rival armed factions.

Arab capitals weigh the risks

Regional reactions have been unusually aligned in public. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates have all welcomed Washington’s push, framing it as the most viable route to immediate de‑escalation and postwar reconstruction. But behind supportive communiqués lie concrete questions: Which countries would staff the ISF? Under what legal mandate would its forces enter Gaza? How would they deconflict with the Israel Defense Forces? And who would guarantee the safety of Arab troops if ceasefire lines fray?

What exile would mean

One of the most sensitive clauses under discussion involves the possible relocation of senior Hamas figures as part of the transition. Mediators say a handful of countries have privately signaled willingness to host specific leaders under restrictive terms, echoing past arrangements after internal Palestinian and regional ruptures. Advocates see exile as a pressure‑release valve that could help avert internecine violence; critics warn it could create an external command structure that continues to direct militancy by proxy.

The hostage calculus

For Israel, the fate of the remaining hostages—estimated at 48—remains paramount. The U.S. plan would front‑load their release, including the return of remains, in exchange for a first tranche of Palestinian prisoners. Hamas negotiators are seeking leeway on captives held by other armed groups and on the pace of prisoner releases to maintain leverage during the demobilization phase.

Paths to failure—and to a deal

Even if Hamas’ political bureau coalesces around a response, three obstacles loom: the verification of disarmament inside a dense urban battlespace; Israel’s insistence on open‑ended security control; and the lack of a clearly articulated political horizon for Palestinians. Conversely, diplomats say a narrow landing zone still exists—anchored in a synchronized hostage‑for‑prisoners exchange, an intrusive monitoring regime, Arab boots on the ground to prevent a security vacuum, and a PA‑linked technocratic cabinet to restart civil services and shepherd reconstruction funds.

What comes next

Mediators expect written positions from Hamas and allied factions within days. Should the group reject the deal, U.S. officials say they will increase economic and diplomatic pressure while supporting Israel’s continued operations. Should Hamas accept—fully or with negotiated amendments—the White House hopes to move quickly toward an initial truce, with Arab partners underwriting early‑recovery projects and border management.

For Gazans, the debate inside Hamas feels painfully remote. In neighborhoods repeatedly uprooted by bombardment, families weigh the risk of another evacuation against the possibility that this plan—however imperfect—could pause the killing and bring food, fuel, and medicine. Whether leaders in Doha, Ramallah, Jerusalem, and Washington can convert the moment into relief on the ground may be decided by what Hamas chooses in the coming days—and by how much compromise each side can bear.