Hamas has agreed to release Israeli hostages. The group set clear conditions for this step. This comes as a response to President Trump’s peace plan. The plan aims to end the long conflict in Gaza.
The agreement focuses on hostages taken during the October 7, 2023 attack. Hamas holds 48 people in total. Israel thinks about 20 of them are still alive. The group said it would free all remaining captives. But this depends on key changes. They want the war to stop right away. They also demand a full pullout of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip. Hamas called these “necessary field conditions.” Other parts of Trump’s 20-point plan need more talks, the group added. They did not mention giving up their weapons, despite calls for that.
Trump reacted with hope. He posted online that he believes Hamas is ready for lasting peace. He urged Israel to halt all bombing in Gaza at once. This would make it safe to release the hostages. Trump noted that talks on the details have already started. He had given Hamas a tight deadline. It was 6 p.m. on October 5, Washington time, to accept his offer.
To grasp why this matters, look back at the conflict’s start. On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel. It killed 1,200 people. The raid led to 250 abductions. Israel struck back hard. The war has dragged on for two years. Gaza’s health ministry reports over 66,000 deaths there. Most were civilians. The fighting has wrecked homes and aid routes. Families on both sides wait in fear for loved ones.
This move by Hamas stands out. It is the first time the group has agreed to release all hostages at once. Past deals freed some, but not everyone. Questions linger, though. Will Israel accept these terms? A full ceasefire and withdrawal could mean big shifts. Israel has not shared its view yet. Experts watch closely. One analyst from the Middle East Institute said, “This opens a door, but trust is low. Both sides must act fast to build on it.” The plan’s other points cover aid, borders, and long-term security. Negotiations could take weeks or fail if tempers rise.
Now, think about Singapore’s stake in this. The city-state sits far from Gaza. Yet, it feels the ripples. Singapore relies on steady oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz. Conflict in the Middle East can spike prices. Gas costs rose 15 percent last year due to similar tensions. Higher energy hits homes and factories here. Businesses pay more to run. Consumers see it at the pump.
Trade takes a hit too. Singapore exports electronics and chemicals to the region. Imports food and raw goods from there. Disruptions slow ships and raise fees. The port handles one-fifth of global trade. Any delay costs millions daily. In 2024, Red Sea attacks from linked groups cut trade by 10 percent. Singapore’s growth dipped as a result.
People here care about peace. Over 20,000 Singaporeans have roots in the Middle East. Mosques and groups follow the news. The government pushes for calm. Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan met Israeli and Palestinian leaders last year. He stressed talks over force. If Trump’s plan works, it could ease global risks. Stable oil means lower inflation. Safe trade boosts jobs. But if talks break, prices climb again. Singapore’s leaders urge all sides to seize this chance. Stability helps everyone, near and far.
The Breakthrough That May Not Be
On October 4, 2025, Hamas made what appears to be a significant concession in the two-year Gaza conflict: agreeing to release all remaining hostages from the October 7, 2023 attack. Yet beneath this headline lies a complex web of conditions, ambiguities, and strategic calculations that could either mark the beginning of peace or simply another chapter in a protracted conflict.
Decoding Hamas’s Strategic Calculation
Hamas’s statement represents a notable shift in negotiating posture, but one laden with caveats. The group agreed to release hostages “contingent upon the necessary field conditions” and “in a manner that ensures the cessation of the war and the full withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.” This language reveals several strategic considerations.
First, by agreeing in principle to hostage release, Hamas has responded to international pressure while maintaining leverage. The organization has essentially accepted the least controversial element of Trump’s 20-point plan while deferring on more existential issues like disarmament. This tactical acquiescence allows Hamas to appear reasonable to international observers while preserving its core capabilities.
Second, the reversal of sequencing is crucial. Unlike previous Hamas statements demanding permanent ceasefire and withdrawal before releasing hostages, this response suggests hostage release could come first, followed by withdrawal. This represents a meaningful concession that addresses one of Israel’s primary concerns about rewarding Hamas before seeing concrete action.
However, the conditions attached reveal Hamas’s vulnerability. The phrase “necessary field conditions” likely refers to the operational realities on the ground. With Israeli forces conducting extensive military operations, Hamas may lack the practical ability to locate, gather, and safely transfer all hostages even if they wanted to. This conditionality provides Hamas with plausible deniability should the release fail to materialize.
Trump’s Diplomatic Gambit
President Trump’s 20-point peace plan represents an attempt to break a deadlock that has frustrated multiple administrations. The plan’s inclusion of amnesty for Hamas operatives who disarm and commit to coexistence is particularly innovative, offering individual militants an exit ramp from the conflict.
Trump’s immediate response demanding Israel halt Gaza bombings demonstrates his willingness to pressure both sides. This balanced approach differs from unconditional support and signals that American leverage will be applied to both parties. His statement that “it’s far too dangerous” to retrieve hostages under current conditions acknowledges the practical obstacles while maintaining momentum.
The deadline Trump set for 6pm on October 5 (Washington time) creates urgency but also risk. If Hamas’s conditional acceptance doesn’t translate into concrete action before the deadline, Trump faces a credibility dilemma: escalate threats against Hamas or accept a partial victory and continue negotiations.
Netanyahu’s Impossible Position
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now confronts a predicament partly of his own making. Having repeatedly stated that Hamas could “end the war tomorrow by releasing the hostages,” he must now decide whether Hamas’s conditional agreement is sufficient.
If Netanyahu accepts and halts operations, he risks domestic political backlash from coalition partners who demand Hamas’s complete destruction. Right-wing members of his government have consistently opposed any deal that leaves Hamas intact as a governing or military entity.
Conversely, if Netanyahu rejects the Hamas response as insufficient and continues military operations, he faces international criticism for blocking hostage release and risks damaging relations with the Trump administration. The Israeli shekel’s positive movement following Hamas’s statement suggests markets believe progress is possible, creating economic pressure for de-escalation.
Netanyahu’s government also faces the agonizing reality that some of the 48 remaining hostages may already be deceased. Israel believes only around 20 are still alive, meaning any agreement must address the grim logistics of recovering remains alongside living hostages.
The Unresolved Core Issues
While hostage release dominates headlines, the conflict’s fundamental questions remain unanswered. Hamas’s statement notably avoided addressing Trump’s disarmament demands, instead saying these issues “require a unified national stance and must be addressed based on relevant international laws and resolutions.”
This evasion is predictable. For Hamas, disarmament means organizational extinction. The group’s military capabilities are central to its identity, governance model, and regional alliances with Iran and Hezbollah. No Hamas leader could credibly agree to complete disarmament without facing internal revolt or assassination.
Similarly, Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace” involving international leaders including former British Prime Minister Tony Blair received no mention in Hamas’s response. This ambitious governance mechanism would require Hamas to cede authority to external actors, something the group has historically resisted.
Regional Dynamics and Arab State Involvement
Trump’s plan reportedly includes coordination with Arab and Muslim states, suggesting Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates have roles in implementation. These nations have complex interests in Gaza’s future.
Egypt seeks stability on its border and wants to prevent refugee flows or militant spillover. The country has historically maintained controlled relations with Hamas while supporting broader Palestinian reconciliation with Fatah.
Qatar has served as Hamas’s primary diplomatic host and financial supporter, giving it unique leverage over the group’s decision-making. Qatari mediation has been crucial in previous hostage negotiations.
Saudi Arabia’s involvement would signal a dramatic shift. The kingdom has pursued normalization with Israel in recent years, and a successful peace agreement could accelerate regional integration while diminishing Iran’s influence through Hamas.
However, Arab states face domestic constraints. Popular opinion across the Middle East remains strongly pro-Palestinian, and governments must balance diplomatic pragmatism with public sentiment that views Israel’s Gaza campaign as disproportionate.
The Humanitarian Catastrophe
Lost amid diplomatic maneuvering is Gaza’s ongoing humanitarian disaster. With over 66,000 deaths according to Gaza’s health ministry and extensive infrastructure destruction, the territory faces generational trauma and reconstruction challenges.
Trump’s plan promises “significant increase in aid deliveries and global involvement to rebuild” Gaza, but implementation requires security guarantees that don’t currently exist. Who would govern Gaza during reconstruction? How would aid reach civilians without benefiting Hamas? Would Israel accept international peacekeepers?
The conflict has created food insecurity, destroyed hospitals and schools, and displaced the majority of Gaza’s population, often multiple times. Any sustainable peace must address these immediate humanitarian needs while establishing governance structures that prevent future violence.
Singapore’s Strategic Interests
While geographically distant, the Gaza conflict carries implications for Singapore that extend beyond moral concern into strategic self-interest.
Regional Stability and Trade Routes
Singapore’s economy depends on open sea lanes and stable global trade networks. Prolonged Middle East conflict risks disrupting shipping through the Suez Canal and increasing insurance costs for vessels transiting volatile regions. While the Gaza conflict itself doesn’t directly threaten these routes, regional escalation involving Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, or Yemen’s Houthi forces could impact global commerce.
Singapore has consistently advocated for international law and rules-based order. The Gaza conflict tests these principles, particularly regarding civilian protection, proportionality in warfare, and the right of self-defense versus obligations under international humanitarian law. Singapore’s positions on these issues affect its diplomatic standing and relationships with both Western partners and Muslim-majority nations.
ASEAN and Muslim World Relations
Singapore maintains carefully calibrated relationships with Muslim-majority neighbors including Malaysia and Indonesia, both of which have expressed strong support for Palestinian rights. Singapore’s statements on the Gaza conflict must acknowledge humanitarian concerns while preserving relationships with Israel and the United States.
The city-state has historically supported two-state solutions and Palestinian self-determination while maintaining quiet but substantive ties with Israel, particularly in defense technology and cybersecurity. This balancing act becomes more difficult during active conflict phases.
Economic Dimensions
Singapore’s position as a global financial center means regional conflicts affect investor confidence and capital flows. Market volatility stemming from Middle East tensions impacts Singapore’s economy through multiple channels: energy prices, investor sentiment, and disruption to international clients operating in affected regions.
Additionally, Singapore hosts significant populations from various communities affected by the conflict. Maintaining social harmony requires sensitive handling of emotionally charged international issues, particularly when religious dimensions overlap with geopolitical ones.
Potential Singapore Roles
Singapore could contribute to conflict resolution through several mechanisms. The city-state has experience facilitating difficult negotiations, as demonstrated in hosting the 2018 Trump-Kim summit. While Singapore would never impose itself as a mediator, it could offer neutral territory for back-channel discussions if requested.
Singapore’s expertise in urban planning, water management, and small-territory development could prove valuable in Gaza’s eventual reconstruction. If international donors seek effective partners for rebuilding projects, Singaporean firms and government agencies possess relevant capabilities.
More broadly, Singapore’s successful model of multi-ethnic, multi-religious coexistence offers lessons for conflict resolution, though the city-state is appropriately cautious about presenting itself as a template for others.
The Credibility Question
Both Hamas and Trump face credibility tests. Hamas has made and broken commitments throughout its history, including previous ceasefire agreements and hostage negotiations. Israeli skepticism about Hamas’s reliability is grounded in this record.
Trump’s threat that “all HELL, like no one has ever seen before, will break out” if Hamas rejects the plan raises questions about what escalation would entail. The United States already provides extensive military support to Israel. Would Trump authorize direct American military action against Hamas? Deploy additional regional forces? Intensify sanctions? The ambiguity may be intentional, but it also risks undermining deterrence if threats aren’t credible.
Scenarios and Pathways Forward
Several scenarios could emerge from this critical moment:
Optimistic Path: Israel halts operations, hostage release proceeds successfully, international peacekeepers deploy to Gaza, reconstruction begins under Arab state supervision with American financial backing, and negotiations continue on governance and disarmament. This scenario requires sustained diplomatic pressure, financial commitments, and willingness from all parties to compromise on core demands.
Stalemate Path: Hamas’s conditional acceptance proves insufficient for Israel, operations continue at reduced intensity, hostage release occurs piecemeal, but fundamental issues remain unresolved. This represents muddle-through diplomacy where violence decreases without formal resolution.
Escalation Path: Negotiations collapse, Trump’s deadline passes without concrete progress, Israel intensifies operations with renewed American support, regional actors intervene, and the conflict expands geographically. This worst-case scenario could involve Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iranian proxies in Syria and Iraq, or direct Iranian involvement.
Fragmented Path: Different elements of Trump’s plan proceed at different speeds. Hostages are released while disarmament negotiations drag on indefinitely. Gaza receives humanitarian aid but governance questions remain unresolved. Israel maintains security buffer zones while international actors attempt long-term solutions.
Conclusion: A Moment of Possibility
Hamas’s agreement to release hostages represents a potential inflection point, but history counsels caution. The gap between conditional acceptance and full implementation remains vast. Core disagreements about Hamas’s future, Gaza’s governance, and security arrangements persist.
For Trump, this represents an opportunity to achieve a foreign policy victory that eluded his predecessors. Success would demonstrate American diplomatic effectiveness and potentially reshape Middle East dynamics. Failure would expose the limits of transactional deal-making in resolving conflicts rooted in decades of grievance and mistrust.
For Israel, the decision point has arrived. Netanyahu must choose between continuing military pressure to fully destroy Hamas or accepting partial gains through negotiation. Each option carries profound risks.
For Singapore and the international community, the coming days will test whether multilateral cooperation can address one of the world’s most intractable conflicts. The principles at stake—protection of civilians, adherence to international law, and peaceful conflict resolution—affect how nations interact across all theaters.
The hostages’ fate remains the immediate moral imperative. Behind their release lies the harder question: can Israelis and Palestinians find a way to share the land they both claim? Hamas’s conditional yes is only the beginning of answering that question, not the end.
Maxthon
In an age where the digital world is in constant flux and our interactions online are ever-evolving, the importance of prioritising individuals as they navigate the expansive internet cannot be overstated. The myriad of elements that shape our online experiences calls for a thoughtful approach to selecting web browsers—one that places a premium on security and user privacy. Amidst the multitude of browsers vying for users’ loyalty, Maxthon emerges as a standout choice, providing a trustworthy solution to these pressing concerns, all without any cost to the user.
Maxthon, with its advanced features, boasts a comprehensive suite of built-in tools designed to enhance your online privacy. Among these tools are a highly effective ad blocker and a range of anti-tracking mechanisms, each meticulously crafted to fortify your digital sanctuary. This browser has carved out a niche for itself, particularly with its seamless compatibility with Windows 11, further solidifying its reputation in an increasingly competitive market.
In a crowded landscape of web browsers, Maxthon has forged a distinct identity through its unwavering dedication to offering a secure and private browsing experience. Fully aware of the myriad threats lurking in the vast expanse of cyberspace, Maxthon works tirelessly to safeguard your personal information. Utilizing state-of-the-art encryption technology, it ensures that your sensitive data remains protected and confidential throughout your online adventures.
What truly sets Maxthon apart is its commitment to enhancing user privacy during every moment spent online. Each feature of this browser has been meticulously designed with the user’s privacy in mind. Its powerful ad-blocking capabilities work diligently to eliminate unwanted advertisements, while its comprehensive anti-tracking measures effectively reduce the presence of invasive scripts that could disrupt your browsing enjoyment. As a result, users can traverse the web with newfound confidence and safety.
Moreover, Maxthon’s incognito mode provides an extra layer of security, granting users enhanced anonymity while engaging in their online pursuits. This specialised mode not only conceals your browsing habits but also ensures that your digital footprint remains minimal, allowing for an unobtrusive and liberating internet experience. With Maxthon as your ally in the digital realm, you can explore the vastness of the internet with peace of mind, knowing that your privacy is being prioritised every step of the way.