By: Fern Sidman

In a move that has once again exposed the entrenched intransigence of Hamas in the face of regional and international efforts to end hostilities, the jihadist group has formally rejected a ceasefire and hostage deal proposed by Qatar—an offer that Israel had already accepted, i24 News reported on Saturday, citing an Israeli official.

Despite the rejection, the delicate negotiations in Doha continue. Israeli representatives remain engaged with mediators from Egypt and Qatar, and, according to the information provided in the i24 News report, the Israeli negotiation team remains in constant contact with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer. Yet the path to a breakthrough appears increasingly steep, given Hamas’ continuing refusal to engage constructively.

The Israeli official quoted by i24 News described Hamas’ posture as consistent with its established modus operandi—namely, a deliberate strategy of obstructionism, ideological warfare, and public manipulation. “They are not negotiating in good faith,” the official emphasized. “Instead, they seek to sabotage the process by distorting the facts on the ground to the Gazan public and fueling unrest within the Israeli public sphere.”

This latest rejection casts a long shadow over what had been regarded as a cautiously hopeful moment in the drawn-out efforts to achieve a ceasefire and secure the release of Israeli hostages still held in the Gaza Strip following the brutal attacks of October 7, 2023. As i24 News reported, Hamas’ repeated refusal to meet the mediators even halfway has become a major stumbling block, particularly given the group’s ideological rigidity and tactical use of negotiations to advance propaganda goals rather than meaningful diplomacy.

The Qatari proposal, accepted by Israel, would have created a framework for a phased agreement including the release of Israeli hostages, a temporary ceasefire, and the initiation of a 60-day period of intensive negotiations. According to the information contained in the i24 News report, this second phase would have aimed to facilitate an end to the war, under terms compatible with Israel’s stated war objectives—namely, the dismantling of Hamas’ military capabilities and the prevention of any resurgence of its terrorist infrastructure in Gaza.

It was this proposal that led Israel to dispatch its delegation to Doha. As the i24 News report noted, the Israeli government not only accepted the Qatari framework but also provided its negotiating team with the full mandate required to engage with mediators and pursue a viable resolution. Israeli sources emphasized their willingness to display flexibility in order to arrive at a sustainable agreement, but pointed out that Hamas’ refusal to budge has rendered meaningful progress nearly impossible.

According to the official quoted by i24 News, “Israel is ready to be flexible in order to bring our people home. But flexibility cannot be one-sided. Hamas continues to take extreme positions that leave no room for the mediators to maneuver.”

For Israel, the stakes are both strategic and deeply personal. The hostages held in Gaza remain a national trauma, and the government has invested immense diplomatic capital in efforts to secure their release. But as i24 News has reported, Israel’s position has remained clear: any long-term agreement must also serve the broader goals of the war effort—to prevent Hamas from continuing its campaign of terror and ensure long-term security for Israeli citizens living in proximity to Gaza.

In contrast, Hamas’ approach appears to prioritize spectacle and psychological warfare over substantive outcomes. As i24 News analysts have observed, the group’s refusal to accept terms it once seemed open to suggests a broader strategic aim: to maintain the momentum of resistance optics, rather than seek an end to a war that has devastated the Gaza Strip and exacted an immense human toll.

Indeed, the Israeli official quoted by i24 News painted a grim picture of Hamas’ tactics—asserting that the group deliberately misrepresents the negotiation process to the people of Gaza, cultivating a narrative that blames Israel for every impasse while masking its own inflexibility. The goal, according to this perspective, is to rally public support for its rule and to project continued strength in the face of military losses.

This psychological warfare is not confined to Gaza alone. As the i24 News report highlighted, Hamas is also engaging in strategic messaging aimed at pressuring the Israeli public, particularly the families of hostages, in hopes of leveraging domestic Israeli dissent into political concessions. However, the government has thus far resisted the pressure to abandon its core objectives, reiterating its commitment to a resolution that does not leave Hamas intact as a governing or military force.

Still, the frustration on the Israeli side is palpable. “If Hamas had accepted the Qatari offer,” the Israeli source told i24 News, “an agreement could have been reached, and we could have entered into a 60-day negotiation period to end the war in accordance with Israel’s war goals.” Instead, the rejection reaffirms what Israeli officials have long contended: that Hamas does not seek peace, but rather a prolongation of conflict on terms that continue to serve its ideological narrative.

This stark divergence in approaches—Israel’s willingness to engage through diplomatic channels, versus Hamas’ defiance and propaganda gamesmanship—poses an ongoing challenge for the Qatari and Egyptian mediators. Both Doha and Cairo have invested heavily in keeping the negotiation channels open, yet their ability to bridge the ideological chasm remains uncertain.

As i24 News has reported throughout the conflict, the international community’s growing impatience with Hamas’ obstructionism may soon alter the diplomatic calculus. Yet for now, the impasse persists, with lives hanging in the balance.

In the coming days, the focus will remain on Doha, where diplomats continue to push for even the faintest sliver of progress. But as i24 News made clear in its coverage, without a fundamental shift in Hamas’ posture, the prospects for a breakthrough remain grim.

Ultimately, while Israel stands prepared to negotiate within clearly defined security parameters, the endurance of Hamas’ ideological rigidity raises a daunting question: Can a ceasefire be reached when one party refuses to abandon the language of perpetual war? The answer, for now, seems buried beneath the rubble of diplomatic hope and militant delusion.