- Hamas is consulting with key factions including Islamic Jihad, PFLP, and DFLP to gauge support for the U.S. cease-fire plan.
- Diverging priorities pose challenges, with some groups demanding full Israeli withdrawal and long-term political guarantees before agreeing.
- Humanitarian pressure is mounting, potentially forcing Hamas to accept an imperfect deal amid worsening famine and destruction in Gaza.
- The deal’s vague terms on post-war governance and disarmament could either delay peace or open the door to a broader political settlement—if internal unity is achieved.
As international efforts intensify to end the months-long Gaza war, Hamas has found itself at a critical juncture—torn between mounting humanitarian catastrophe, internal Palestinian dynamics, and the need for strategic cohesion. The militant group’s ongoing consultation with other Palestinian factions over a U.S.-brokered cease-fire plan underscores both the depth of the internal political calculus and the high stakes for Gaza’s future.
Hamas and the Factions: Who’s at the Table?
Hamas has confirmed that it is in dialogue with “all major Palestinian factions” to evaluate the American proposal mediated by U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff, in coordination with Egypt and Qatar. Chief among these factions are Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), and elements of Fatah based in Gaza. Each group represents a different ideological strand of Palestinian resistance and governance, making consensus both essential and elusive.
Islamic Jihad, Hamas’s closest military ally in Gaza, has traditionally aligned with Hamas’s hardline stance on Israeli withdrawal and armed resistance. However, sources suggest the group is wary of agreeing to a truce without guarantees on disarmament and Israeli military withdrawal. The PFLP and DFLP, both Marxist-rooted secular groups, have shown openness to international mediation but criticize what they call “fragmented negotiations” that exclude broader national consensus, particularly the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
Are the Super-Rich Leaving London? Labour’s Tax Reforms Spur a Wealth Exodus
Interestingly, Fatah, which governs the West Bank under President Mahmoud Abbas, remains largely sidelined. While some Fatah-aligned figures in Gaza are being consulted informally, no formal unity mechanism exists, underscoring the enduring schism in Palestinian leadership since 2007.
Will All Factions Fall in Line?
While Hamas remains the de facto authority in Gaza and holds decisive military power, its legitimacy—especially in the aftermath of the October 7 conflict and ensuing Israeli onslaught—depends on internal Palestinian unity. However, signs point to divergence rather than convergence.
According to political analysts in Ramallah and Beirut, some factions are skeptical of the cease-fire plan’s vague guarantees. The deal, reportedly offering a 60-day truce in exchange for hostage-prisoner swaps and humanitarian relief, fails to meet key demands such as permanent Israeli withdrawal, guaranteed aid corridors, and a clear roadmap for Gaza’s governance post-war.
Islamic Jihad has already signaled reluctance unless armed resistance is guaranteed continued operational space after the truce. The PFLP and DFLP have demanded that any cease-fire be linked to a national unity government and new elections—conditions that could undermine Hamas’s authority. Hamas, caught between losing control and yielding to popular desperation, is therefore negotiating from a position of constrained options.
READ MORE:Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ Tariffs Struck Down: Legal Setback, But Not End of Protectionist Push
The biggest wild card remains the Palestinian public, especially the nearly two million Gazans suffering under siege, bombardment, and famine. Reports from UN agencies describe Gaza as the “hungriest place on Earth,” with Israel accused of restricting aid despite truce provisions. These dynamics could tilt the internal consensus toward accepting the deal, even if it falls short politically.
READ MORE:Hamas reviews Gaza ceasefire proposal as U.S. expresses optimism
The Future of the Gaza Deal: Foggy, Fragmented, and Fragile
The U.S.-backed proposal hinges on a staggered sequence of hostage releases, temporary cessation of hostilities, and phased aid delivery. However, its ambiguity on critical issues—like post-truce governance, military presence, and disarmament—leaves ample room for breakdowns.
Three major pitfalls lie ahead:
-
Israeli Preconditions: Israel insists on the total dismantling of Hamas, full hostage return, and Gaza’s demilitarization before any permanent cease-fire—non-starters for Hamas and its allies. Without U.S. pressure on Israel to soften these terms, the plan may collapse midway.
-
Internal Palestinian Fractures: If Hamas cannot forge a united front with factions like Islamic Jihad and the PFLP, internal splits could erupt into violence or create a political vacuum during the truce. This could invite further Israeli intervention or prompt factional realignments.
-
Humanitarian Complications: With the new aid distribution system reportedly in disarray and widespread hunger in southern Gaza, a failure to deliver immediate, visible relief could spark unrest—especially if Israel continues to limit crossings and UN coordination falters.
For now, Hamas’s announcement that it is conducting a “thorough and responsible review” suggests a cautious path forward. Spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri’s statement that the deal “fails to meet any of the just and legitimate demands” signals discontent but not final rejection.
The longer Hamas delays a decision, the more it risks losing ground—literally and politically. But rushing into a flawed deal could weaken its authority and embolden rivals within Gaza.
A Broader Political Opening—or More of the Same?
This cease-fire proposal, imperfect as it may be, represents the first serious diplomatic window since the war escalated. Yet without structural reforms—like Palestinian unity, international guarantees, and Israeli political shifts—the current plan may only offer a temporary pause before the next round of devastation.
The tragedy of Gaza lies not just in its physical ruin but in the failure of Palestinian factions to unite under a common, forward-looking vision. Whether this cease-fire plan becomes a bridge to peace or a pause before collapse may well depend on Hamas’s ability to forge consensus—not just with its enemies, but among its own.