On October 8, a late "list" was handed over to the Trump team by Hamas. Not a secret, not a rumor, but a full list of detainees.
A few hours later, Israel submitted a list of prisoners. The two confronted each other for two years and exchanged the most sensitive documents on the same day.
The list is suddenly handed over, why has Hamas changed its tone?
The last week of September 2025. In a public speech, Trump announced that he had a proposal called “20 Points for Peace in Gaza.”This plan proposes to use a hostage exchange as an incision to gradually advance a ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli troops, the establishment of a reconstruction mechanism and international supervision.
The wording is not fierce, the tone of voice is restrained, and it seems peaceful, but anyone familiar with the situation in the Middle East knows that the word peace is much heavier than any weapon. He once said that he would "raze Gaza", but now he is negotiating conditions. This change itself is doubtful enough.
Most people see it as a symbolic gesture, in order to accumulate diplomatic codes, and some even say it is only an extension of the American election war. Gaza is still burning, the Israeli Defense Army is moving forward as usual, and Hamas has shown no signs of relaxation.As always, under guns and guns, the word negotiation is the most worthless.
On October 2nd, an unnoticeable message was quietly released from the White House news group. The Trump team has officially communicated the “20 Peace Points” to Hamas and set a vague response deadline.
There was no specific time, no hard tone, not even a press release, only a few briefings buried behind the diplomatic agenda.
Gaza is not monolithic inside either. Since the beginning of 2025, Hamas has been tightening tactics one after another. Air strikes destroyed many of their supply routes, and combatant casualties continued to rise.
They realized, Israel does not intend to fight a limited conflict and then withdraw like it did in 2021, but wants to press to the bottom line.External support is reduced and internal pressure is increasing, and continued war of attrition is not good for them. At this time, any proposal that provides breathing space will be brought to the table for discussion.
On October 3, a closed-door conference was held in the southwestern corner of Gaza. The meeting was attended by people from above the Hamas Political Bureau, with no media or video. The focus of their discussions is Trump’s “20 points.”
That evening, a source close to Hamas told reporters that the program was being evaluated internally. "There are some provisions that are not unacceptable."As soon as this sentence came out, the vigilance of the outside world instantly increased. The next day, more foreign media began to follow up.
Between October 4 and 6, a series of anonymous statements appeared in major newspapers and news channels. Some say Hamas is willing to discuss the hostage issue, some say they are studying the possibility of international surveillance mechanisms, and that the idea of "technical bureaucracy taking over Gaza" has not been completely denied. It vaguely outlines the fact that Hamas is no longer monolithic, and someone internally has begun to prepare for negotiations.
Hamas spokesman Taher Al-Nounou openly said that they had passed diplomatic pipelines to submit documents to the mediator, including a “list of all survivors and deceased persons.” The appearance of this list is not a coincidence, but the key to the restructuring of the negotiating structure.Israel submitted a prisoner list “unconditionally.”
The two hostile parties, who have been exchanging fire for more than a year and have little direct contact, completed the most sensitive exchange at an almost synchronized speed on that day. This synchronization is not likely to be coincidental. must have been formed some degree of silence behind it.
No official announcement, no press conference, no signing scene. It was like two knives had been removed from their throats, but no one knew who let go first.
Synchronized exchange of hostage lists, who is behind the line?
On the morning of October 8, at 9 a.m. Washington time, Trump announced at an interim news conference: "The first phase agreement has been reached, including hostage exchange, ceasefire arrangement, initial withdrawal path."There was no question and answer session, no media interaction, and he left the game five minutes later. This anomaly of brevity has attracted more attention.
The outside world was still reacting, and the news had come back to the Middle East. At 2 p.m. on the same day Gaza time, Hamas held an internal briefing in its controlled area, and Taher Al-Nounou personally confirmed: We have submitted a complete list of hostages to the intermediary, and we have received a list of each other’s prisoners."Without much explanation, just reiterating:" We will comply with the obligations promised in the first phase.。”As soon as this sentence came out, the entire Israeli media circle immediately began to interpret it.
The Israel Defense Forces subsequently issued a statement confirming the "receipt of the list" but did not disclose follow-up arrangements. A military spokesman mentioned at a briefing that evening: “We will closely monitor progress to ensure the safe return of those involved.”More cautiously, the Foreign Ministry said: “Israel will follow up on Hamas’ progress in time.”
On the night when the exchange was completed, the intensity of firepower in many cities in Gaza dropped significantly.The artillery, which had not been interrupted for weeks in a row, stopped for a short time that day. Not a ceasefire, but a kind of consensus trial. On the border line, the troops began to move into defensive positions and no longer proactively advanced.
At this time, Hamas put forward a new condition.
They clearly indicate in the mediation documents: "The final phase of the release of hostages must be completed simultaneously with the full Israeli withdrawal.These words rewrite the whole situation.Today everyone thought that this exchange was a step-by-step process: first the people, then the ceasefire, then the withdrawal. Now Hamas has reversed its structure and tied the hostage release timing to the withdrawal of troops, forming a mandatory interlock.
This is not pleading, but a game.
They did not ask for a timetable for withdrawal or a ceasefire period. They only said: "The moment when the last person is released must coincide with the withdrawal of the last Israeli soldier." This is a tactical arrangement and a political gesture. If Israel breaches the agreement, the last hostage will not be released.
This is not blackmail, but a way of sewing and tearing up negotiations.
Israel has not made a public statement on this clause. But many analysts pointed out that, This arrangement is tantamount to binding the military rhythm and diplomatic process simultaneously, and the delay of either party may lead to the overall collapse of the agreement.
At the same time, Hamas also added requirements for an "international safeguard mechanism." They require that the agreement must be embedded in "multilateral oversight" and verified on-site by an executive team composed of the United Nations or neutral countries. The document does not clearly specify the country, but "non-single country leading" becomes the bottom line.
This mechanism means that Hamas no longer believes in the unilateral commitments of either party.What they want is structural constraints, not diplomatic commitments.This change, in fact, has been seen two years ago.In the summer of 2024, after a failed ceasefire attempt by Hamas to release hostages, Israel delayed the withdrawal time because of “uncertain war zone security” and eventually reopened fire, killing dozens of civilians.
Following that experience, Hamas wrote in its internal documents: “Any agreement without structural safeguards is a military trap.This time, they obviously decided not to take any more risks.
The outside world has mixed reactions to this. Some countries have expressed concerns about the method of "tying withdrawal and release" and are worried that disputes can easily arise in actual operation. Others believe that this is an approach to "effectively suppress the risk of default" and prevent the agreement from being torn up halfway as in the past.
In any case, the first phase has already begun. the list has been handed over, and the position has been stuck dead.
It was an exchange without hugs, without signing ceremonies, without even congratulations. All information is conveyed in silence, and all signals are buried in calm statements.
No smoke does not mean no gunpowder, no bullet does not mean throwing down a gun.
What hooks are hidden in Hamas's new conditions?
This is not the first time that Hamas has used the word "guarantee", but this time its firepower is more concentrated. They publicly stated that Israel had violated two temporary ceasefires in the past, and prisoners were still detained after the withdrawal was not completed and the hostages were released.
Hamas directly stated on behalf of Khalil Khaya: They demand that all agreements be placed under a “multilateral supervisory framework” and that third-party guarantees be introduced.
There are no country names or names on the document, but what is revealed between the lines is a comprehensive denial of all unilateral statements.
Foreign media analysts pointed out that Hamas no longer believes that any party alone can ensure security enforcement and must build a balanced safeguard system.The United States had contacted Hamas in June 2024, but was rejected by Hamas because of China's refusal to participate in the guarantee.
This time, Hamas did not exclude any party, but it did not give any party exclusive dominance.What they want is international supervision, not the will of a certain country.
Statements such as refusing foreign troops to be stationed and excluding Blair from participating in governance have not been seen in the full document, but have frequently appeared in some media citations. Avoiding any form of external military dominance, guarantees of ceasefire exist not only on paper.
The agreement is signed, who will implement it?
The list is handed over and the conditions are on the table, but most importantly, it depends on who is willing to execute.
Senior Israeli military officials have always had reservations about the word "withdrawal". On the one hand, they demand that security buffer zones are not eroded; on the other hand, there are internal disagreements as to whether a “total withdrawal” equals the abandonment of a “national security border.”
The Trump team claimed that "the first stage has been achieved," but gave no details on the construction of the "safeguard mechanism."The United States has not previously supported the "international guarantee" mechanism proposed by Hamas, and has not even commented on some terms.
This complicates the situation. Although the agreement is signed, how to implement it depends on whether there is a strong enough enforcement mechanism. Especially when Hamas links the hostage release process to the withdrawal of troops, a slight deviation may trigger a chain reaction.
At the same time, the intervention of external forces is also a hidden worry. The United Nations, the Red Cross, and the Arab League are all expressing "cautious optimism", but have not yet made a public commitment to whether they are willing to assume the role of "supervision and checks and balances."
According to Israeli media analysts, the success of the agreement depends on whether the implementation nodes are aligned within the next 15 days.
Hamas's signal to the outside world was clear: "We handed over the list, but not trust."
This silent negotiation, beginning with a paper list, goes to a set of games, and this game, after every page of paper, is a row of ruins and a night of silence.
Who will break the contract first? the documents did not give us the answer.
Reference source:
Hamas says it has submitted a list of hostages and called for synchronous withdrawal of Israeli troops, Xinhua, October 8, 2025"Israel and Hamas launch the first phase ceasefire agreement, and the two sides exchange hostage and prisoner lists"-CCTV News, October 8, 2025
"Hamas proposes" international guarantee "conditions and calls for the establishment of a multilateral monitoring mechanism to ensure the implementation of the ceasefire"-China Daily, October 9, 2025