The long-standing conflict in the Gaza Strip is rooted in historical grievances and territorial disputes, and the Palestinian people’s efforts to pursue independence have faced severe challenges.Israel’s military operations often extend their impact on security grounds, resulting in civilian casualties and infrastructure damage.
In the current global context, despite progress in U.S.-led mediation, Israel’s unilateralistic tendency has aggravated the difficulties of negotiation. Hamas as the actual controller of Gaza, its position reflects the expectations of a fair exchange within Palestine. This impasse is not the first, but highlights the deep collision between political symbols and security considerations.
Israel has explicitly rejected the release of Marwan Barghouti, a Palestinian politician who has been sentenced to life imprisonment for involvement in organizing attacks. Israel sees it as a threat and fears that the release will restore Palestinian leadership and strengthen unity.
Barghouti enjoys broad support in Palestinian society, and opinion polls show that his influence exceeds that of existing leaders, which makes Israel even more reluctant to budge. Compared with previous exchanges, such as the Shalit Agreement in 2011, which involved thousands of prisoners, the focus was on the redemption of a single soldier. This time, the scale expanded to nearly 2,000 people, but it was stuck in key figures, showing Israel's degree of political risks. Prevention escalation.
Hamas has expressed strong dissatisfaction with Israel’s rejection, and negotiators have repeatedly stated through media channels that the agreement would lose political value and exchange only on a technical level if it did not include Balguthis and similar figures.
In the past negotiations, Hamas has often used hostages as codes, but this time it has agreed to release the first 20 living hostages, but has adjusted the list, reflecting strategic resilience. Compared to the short-term ceasefire in November 2023, the exchange was limited to women and children, this time involving lifetime prisoners and civilians, Hamas attempted to incorporate political claims into the framework by mediating pressure on Egypt and Qatar.
The U.S. special envoy intervened and forwarded Hamas’s request to the Israeli prime minister, but the Israeli cabinet insisted on removing seven well-known prisoners, including Ahmed Saad, who was sentenced to 30 years in prison for alleged ministerial assassination.
In a Hamas response, an official publicly accused Israel of undermining the basis of peace and threatening to delay the transfer of hostages.This differs from the mediation in the first half of 2024, when the focus was on the opening of aid channels, the Trump plan to join reconstruction aid, allowing hundreds of trucks to enter Gaza, marking a shift from military easing to economic recovery, but interrupted talks once due to list disagreements.
Barghouti’s role during the Second Uprising was recognized by Israeli courts as plotting multiple attacks that resulted in civilian deaths. But in the Palestinian context, he represented efforts to fight for rights,ining influence through prison activities such as organizing hunger protests. Hamas used this to release it as a negotiating lever, aimed at weakening opponents and strengthening its own legitimacy.
Israel’s rejection, based on intelligence assessments, argued that Bargo putting prison or leading to Palestinian restructuring posed a challenge to border security.This time, Hamas focused more on political balance and rejected mere technical exchange, showing the organization’s evolution from military priority to integrated strategy.
Saad al-Assad’s background is equally sensitive, as the leader of the People’s Liberation Front, whose organization has been involved in armed operations and Israel considers it illegal. Israel’s list includes Islamic Jihad commanders such as Yad Abu Rub, but regulates deportation abroad to prevent local activities.
This exchange’s progress from the past has been to limit the increase in terms and push the agreement to focus more on long-term stability.Hamas has made harsh statements, amplifying its voice through platforms such as Al-Jazeera, saying Israel’s red line is unilaterally imposed and calling for international intervention.
The formation of the deadlock is also influenced by domestic politics. The Israeli Prime Minister is facing a cabinet split, and some ministers are threatening to withdraw. If barghouti is released, it may be regarded as weak. Hamas is also under great pressure within, and the need for reconstruction in Gaza is urgent, but it is unwilling to compromise on symbolic tasks.
The mediator, Egypt, suggested a phase-by-phase settlement, advancing the first batch of exchanges and then discussing the list of disputes, but Israel insisted on a one-off settlement to avoid further uncertainty. Hamas responded sharply, leaving the negotiating table briefly on October 5 and returning through Qatar the next day, showing a combination of flexibility and persistence. Compared to the short ceasefire in February 2025, Trump set a 72-hour deadline to speed up the resolution and avoid delays due to the breach of the agreement.
The key role of the Trump administration, as the President of the United States, he listed the peace of Gaza as a diplomatic priority, advancing in three stages: ceasefire, prisoner exchange, permanent ceasefire and withdrawal, and reconstruction aid. Compared to his predecessor, this plan focuses more on comprehensiveness, integrating intelligence support and security guarantees, and pushing Israel's approval list.
Although Hamas was tough, faced with internal pressure from people's livelihood, it finally accepted the adjustment and agreed to release all remaining hostages. This reflects the renewal of the negotiations from confrontation to pragmatism. Hamas gave up some needs in exchange for aid commitments, marking the maturity of the strategy.
Israel's list controversy has sparked internal Palestinian debate.Fatah sees Balguti as a potential successor, and Hamas is pressuring, but Israel fears the formation of a unified government.
Saadat's case has a detailed record. Israel emphasizes the seriousness of the crime, and Hamas refutes it as political persecution, but the result has not been changed. During the negotiations, the United States put pressure on Israel to expand its scale, but the red line remained unchanged, and Hamas adjusted its position through multiple rounds of video conferences.
Hamas's toughness is not only reflected in words, but also in its preparations for action. They completed preparations for the hostage transfer, but postponed it on the condition of the list. Israeli intelligence shows that Hamas 'internal assessment believes that it is in its interests to continue negotiations and avoid the continuation of the war. Compared with before, international involvement is deeper, with China calling for fairness and the Red Cross preparing for assistance, reflecting the strengthening of global consensus.
Although the impasse was brief, it exposed deep problems. Israel’s control of well-known prisoners was strict and avoided political risks; Hamas pushed development from partial to comprehensive by insisting on raising the negotiating position. The agreement was finally signed on October 9, showing mechanism progress, but political symbols were unresolved, leaving hidden danger.
At present, the agreement is being implemented smoothly. Hamas has released 20 living hostages and 26 bodies, Israel has released nearly 2,000 prisoners, aid has entered Gaza, and troops have partially withdrawn. Palestinians returned to their homes, and civil defense continued to search. This progress is conducive to stability, but it requires Israel to fully comply with the contract, ensure Palestinian rights and interests and avoid unilateral actions.
This event reflects the complexity of the Middle East peace.Israel’s rejection is based on security, but ignores the legitimate demands of the Palestinian people.Hamas’s response is harsh, but reflects its determination to fight for justice.The international community should strengthen coordination, promote comprehensive dialogue and lasting peace.
Although the ceasefire agreement was deadlocked for a short time, it was promoted through mediation, which reflected the value of diplomatic efforts. However, the core contradiction, such as the release of prisoners, still needs to balance the interests of all parties in order to lay the foundation for peace.