On May 31, 2025, DropSite News published the full text of Hamas’s formal response to the latest ceasefire proposal—13 detailed points that together amount to a rare and far-reaching offer. In it, Hamas pledged to relinquish control of Gaza to a neutral, nonpartisan Palestinian governing body, allow the unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid, and enter a framework toward a permanent ceasefire. In return, the group requested internationally binding guarantees—particularly from the United States—that Israel would not simply pause long enough to reload before resuming its military assault.

This is not political theater. It’s a document rooted in diplomatic channels, responding to a U.S.-backed proposal being brokered through Egypt and Qatar. Hamas is offering to take itself out of power in exchange for a serious end to hostilities and occupation.

Yet despite this, Israel—and its enablers in Washington—are saying: no deal.

Earlier in May, DropSite News’ Jeremy Scahill obtained a previous version of the ceasefire agreement. That draft included a provision in which Hamas would hand over governance of Gaza to an independent technocratic committee. That clause vanished in the final version, reportedly at the insistence of Israel—with full U.S. backing. Now, with the May 31 document, Hamas has publicly reaffirmed its willingness to transfer authority. Once again, the Israeli government is rejecting the offer.

If this were a war being waged to dismantle Hamas, such a rejection would be nonsensical. But if Hamas is merely a convenient villain—an ever-useful pretext for continued occupation, bombardment, and apartheid—then the refusal begins to make perfect sense.

A Pretext, Not a Threat

For decades, Hamas has served as Israel’s geopolitical screen. Its violence, reactionary ideology, and attacks on civilians offer endless justification for Israel’s siege of Gaza, its blockades, and its targeted assassinations. But Hamas’s utility is not just in what it does—it’s in how it can be used.

So long as Hamas governs Gaza, Israel can frame the conflict not as a national liberation struggle by millions of stateless Palestinians, but as an asymmetric war against a group of extremists. That framing is crucial. It turns occupation into counterterrorism. It transforms colonial control into self-defense.

A politically defanged Hamas threatens that narrative. A Gaza governed by technocrats with international legitimacy—and with Hamas no longer in charge—could put the spotlight back where it belongs: on Israel’s expanding settlements, its systematic denial of Palestinian rights, and its refusal to negotiate toward a sovereign Palestinian state.

Manufactured Extremism Has Precedent

This is not a conspiracy theory—it’s a matter of historical record. During the 1980s, Israeli authorities saw value in supporting Islamist organizations as a counterweight to the secular nationalism of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Brigadier General Yitzhak Segev, Israel’s former military governor in Gaza, openly admitted in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that he had funneled Israeli money to Islamist groups. The goal, he said, was to fracture Palestinian unity and weaken the secular left.

By the early 2000s, the plan had matured. Hamas, once marginal, had become a dominant political force. It won democratic elections in Gaza in 2006 and ousted Fatah in 2007. The Israeli response was to impose a blockade on Gaza, isolate Hamas internationally, and launch periodic military campaigns that turned neighborhoods into rubble and civilians into statistics.

But in every one of those campaigns, Hamas’s presence has made it easier for Israel to dismiss global criticism. “We’re fighting terrorists,” they say—even as entire families are killed in their homes.

The Real Threat: Palestinian Unity

This is why the May 31 document matters so deeply. Hamas has proposed something Israel has long insisted it wanted: an end to their governance of Gaza. They are offering, conditionally but seriously, to step away from power. And Israel is not only uninterested—it appears threatened.

Why? Because a unified Palestinian front—one not led by Hamas but by a broadly supported, nonpartisan leadership—poses the real political threat. Such a leadership would be harder to bomb, harder to demonize, and far more persuasive on the international stage. It could shift the center of gravity from violence to diplomacy, from managing conflict to resolving it.

It’s no coincidence that every Palestinian attempt at political reconciliation—between Hamas and Fatah, or among other factions—has been met with deep unease not only from Israel, but from its Western backers. Division is strategic. Chaos is useful. And Hamas, as much as it is bombed and blamed, is also instrumental to preserving that chaos.

What Israel Fears Most

Here’s the truth: Israel doesn’t fear Hamas. It needs Hamas. What it fears is a legitimate Palestinian government rooted in international law, democratic representation, and anti-colonial solidarity. It fears a Palestinian voice that the world might actually listen to.

If Hamas steps down and a neutral technocratic committee takes over, the next step is international pressure to recognize Palestinian statehood, end the blockade, dismantle the occupation, and stop collective punishment. That’s the real threat—not Hamas rockets, but global legitimacy for Palestinian liberation.

The Bottom Line

So let’s be honest: if Hamas’s continued rule is the reason Israel cannot make peace, then its voluntary exit should have been cause for celebration. Instead, it’s being quietly rejected—again.

What that tells us is disturbing but not surprising. Hamas may be violent, theocratic, and often politically toxic—but in the calculus of Israeli power, it is also essential. Not because it strengthens Palestinian resistance, but because it weakens Palestinian credibility. It turns liberation into terrorism. It allows occupation to masquerade as self-defense.

So when you see Hamas offering to step aside—and Israel insisting they remain—don’t miss the paradox. Interrogate it. Because the logic of this war, as presented, doesn’t hold. The real logic is not about defeating Hamas. It’s about ensuring the conditions that keep Hamas—and the violence it enables—exactly where it is.