Hamas’s “Yes” That Really Means “No”

Hamas’s reply to Donald Trump’s ultimatum has been sold to the world as an acceptance, but it’s really a classic sleight of hand. What they’ve offered is not a wholehearted “yes” but a conditional, slippery “maybe”—a polite rejection camouflaged for the cameras. The language was deliberately vague, pitched just right so that media headlines could trumpet it as a breakthrough, while the underlying reality remains unchanged. Trump ordered Israel to halt the bombing on the back of this supposed acceptance, yet Hamas never truly signed on to the full terms.

The choreography here is no accident. Behind Hamas stand its well-known backers—Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey—who have been playing a double game of their own. These states position themselves as indispensable mediators, presenting themselves to Western capitals as pragmatic stabilizers while simultaneously stalling and shielding Hamas from making concessions that would strip it of power. They are not neutral referees but rather protective patrons, ensuring Hamas can drag its feet without paying the full price of open refusal. The West, eager for any hint of progress, lets itself be managed by this trio, swallowing carefully crafted statements that look like cooperation but are designed only to buy more time.

The selective “yes” from Hamas proves the point. They nod to easier clauses—like the partial release of hostages or administrative reshuffling of Gaza’s governance—but sidestep the core demands of Trump’s 20-point proposal: disarmament, dismantling their military structure, or renouncing control of their armed factions. That is the real “no,” buried under rhetorical sugarcoating. And with Doha, Cairo, and Ankara lending diplomatic cover, the illusion of movement is preserved even as the substance of the deal is gutted.

This leaves everyone in a bind. Trump can claim victory for headlines, Hamas can claim survival at the negotiating table, Qatar and Egypt can claim relevance as brokers, and Turkey can posture as defender of Palestinian interests. But Israel is left with the hardest reality check: the so-called acceptance is a mirage, and the strategic impasse remains. What’s been presented to the world as a step forward is in fact a carefully staged stall, a theater of diplomacy where “yes” really means “no.”