Netanyahu Under Pressure as Hamas Partially Accepts Peace Deal
Ishtiaq Ahmed
Bradford: United States President Donald Trump’s push for a ceasefire in Gaza and a broader peace agreement is putting mounting pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In response, Netanyahu has reportedly ordered his ministers to avoid media appearances to prevent further friction with Washington.
The diplomatic shift follows an ultimatum from Trump to Hamas, threatening severe consequences if the group rejected his peace proposal by Sunday.
On Friday, Hamas responded, agreeing to release all Israeli hostages, living and deceased, and expressed openness to negotiating the plan’s remaining terms.
Trump welcomed the response, calling it a step toward “lasting peace,” and urged Israel to pause its military campaign to facilitate the safe release of hostages.
Hamas also signalled its readiness to hand over governance of Gaza to a Palestinian-led panel of independent technocrats. However, the group stressed that other elements of the 20-point plan require broader consultation among Palestinian factions. Senior Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzouk reiterated that disarmament is not an option until the Israeli occupation ends.
Netanyahu has indicated support for implementing the first phase, focused on hostage release, but insists Hamas’s refusal to disarm remains a major obstacle. Despite these positions, Trump’s plan appears to be gaining momentum, even as both parties hold firm to long-standing demands.
International response has been broadly supportive. UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer called Hamas’s partial acceptance a “significant step forward,” while French President Emmanuel Macron and UN Secretary General António Guterres described the deal as a real opportunity for peace.
Among Israelis, especially families of hostages, Trump’s proposal is being viewed as the best chance to bring their loved one’s home and end the war.
Within Hamas, internal pressure from Palestinian factions appears to have softened the group’s stance. Hamas has framed its response as the product of wide consultations with political allies, legal advisors, and international mediators.
Trump remains optimistic. Posting on Truth Social, he said: “I believe they are ready for a lasting PEACE… This is not about Gaza alone—this is about long-sought peace in the Middle East.” The peace plan could become a defining legacy of his foreign policy.
Still, while hopes are rising after nearly two years of bloodshed, the final stretch remains fragile.
The war In Gaza has so far cost: some 67,000 Palestinian lives , mainly civilians ( 80%) , lives of over 224 humanitarian aid workers. It is estimated that 70% of the Palestinians were killed in residential buildings housing women and children.
Both Hamas and Netanyahu continue to craft public narratives that project strength, but behind the scenes, diplomatic negotiations are intensifying. With lives at stake and public pressure growing, the coming days could be pivotal.
The progress on the peace deal leaves open questions about the recognition of Palestinian state as of right by Israel and the future of those that are responsible for the crimes of genocide.
Ishtiaq Bahi’s latest analysis on the Gaza ceasefire initiative and Donald Trump’s peace plan captures a crucial turning point in the Middle East crisis. His writing is marked by a rare blend of realism and humanitarian sensitivity.
What stands out most is his careful framing — he avoids one-sided moralizing and instead presents the evolving dynamics between Netanyahu’s political resistance and Hamas’s conditional pragmatism. He situates both within the larger geopolitical realignment driven by Washington’s new assertiveness under Trump’s “legacy diplomacy.”
The article’s power lies in its humanitarian conscience. By reminding readers of the staggering toll — 67,000 Palestinian deaths, mostly civilians; 224 humanitarian aid workers lost — Ishtaiq Bahi anchors the discussion not in abstract politics but in human suffering. This emphasis makes his work resonate beyond policy circles — it’s both a moral document and a geopolitical analysis.
Furthermore, he rightly underscores how international opinion is shifting: the UK, France, and the UN now view even a partial Hamas acceptance as a “significant step forward.” This reflects a new international fatigue with endless war and a longing for tangible peace.
Equally insightful is his recognition of internal pressure within Hamas — something often ignored in Western commentary. By acknowledging the pragmatic recalibration of Hamas leadership under regional and factional pressure, he captures an important political evolution that could shape post-war governance in Gaza.
The concluding observation — that peace remains fragile but possible — carries both caution and hope. Ahmed refuses the false optimism of politicians and the cynicism of pundits. Instead, he situates peace as a moral necessity, fragile yet achievable if both sides and the global community act with sincerity and justice.
Finally, his closing question — about Palestinian statehood and accountability for war crimes — is perhaps the most important. It reminds readers that no peace will be lasting unless it rests on justice and recognition of rights.
—
In Essence
Ishtiaq Bahi’s article stands out as:
* Balanced yet courageous
* Humanitarian yet politically astute
* Cautiously hopeful but morally grounded
It’s journalism that reminds us: true peace demands truth, justice, and empathy — not just diplomacy.