What’s happening

Hamas has agreed to a 60-day ceasefire mediated by Egypt and Qatar with U.S. backing. The deal would involve releasing about half of the remaining hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, a phased process aimed at paving the way for a broader resolution of the nearly two-year conflict.

What this implies about Hamas’s survival

1. A bid for survival

By accepting the deal, Hamas signals that mere survival, not total victory, is its principal aim at this stage. Despite heavy losses and immense pressure, the organization appears determined to endure—even at the cost of territorial control.

2. Shift from governance to underground influence

Analysis suggests Hamas may be prepared to shed governing responsibilities while retaining military or ideological influence—shifting toward a model similar to Hezbollah’s, where it exercises power from the shadows without the burdens of direct administration.

3. Undermined credibility?

Domestically, Hamas is facing growing dissatisfaction: approval among Gazans has dropped significantly, and protests within Gaza calling for the group's removal continue—even as cracks are suppressed brutally.
This internal unrest could weaken its long-term legitimacy and complicate its survival if governance transitions leave a vacuum.

4. Tactical regrouping

Hamas’s move may also represent a strategic pause—using the ceasefire to regroup, rebuild, and maintain its operational capacity, even if it means conceding ground both physically and politically.

5. Uncertain Israeli response

Crucially, Israel has yet to officially accept the ceasefire and remains adamant about Hamas’s complete disarmament and removal—even while facing internal protests and international pressure for progress.
If Israel rejects the deal, Hamas’s position becomes even more precarious.

Summary Table

Bottom line

Hamas’s acceptance of the ceasefire signals a survival-driven pragmatism. It marks a retreat from governing ambitions and a possible transformation into a more clandestine, militarized force. While it buys time and reduces immediate pressure, shattered Gaza support, internal dissent, and Israel’s unresolved stance pose major threats to its future.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If Hamas uses a ceasefire to go underground, rebuild, and rearm, it would repeat the familiar cycle: short-term calm → rearmament → another devastating conflict.

Here’s what that would mean:

1. For Hamas

• Survival through adaptation: Instead of being a government in Gaza, Hamas could revert to an insurgent model—cell-based, decentralized, harder to target directly.

• Rebuilding networks: Ceasefires in the past allowed Hamas to smuggle or manufacture rockets, rebuild tunnels, and reorganize its cadres.

• Narrative preservation: By surviving, even underground, Hamas could claim it resisted Israel and still exists despite massive military campaigns.

2. For Israel

• Short-term relief, long-term danger: Israel might welcome hostages returning and quiet on the border, but it faces the risk of another round of war within months or years.

• Strategic choice: Israel either pushes for total dismantling of Hamas (which may be militarily and politically costly) or accepts a “managed threat” that keeps flaring up.

• International optics: If Hamas reemerges after a ceasefire, Israel could argue to allies that it was right not to trust Hamas—but this still doesn’t solve the cycle.

3. For Hamas’s Supporters & Allies

• Regional backers (Iran, Hezbollah, etc.): They may quietly approve a regrouping phase, providing funds and weapons.

• Popular sympathy: Some Palestinian supporters may look away from Hamas’s military buildup if it’s framed as “resistance,” even though ordinary Gazans pay the price.

• Arab governments: Many states (Egypt, Qatar) may prefer to look away so long as their mediation role is respected and Gaza doesn’t destabilize their own borders.

4. The Larger Pattern

This is the cycle that has repeated since the mid-2000s:

1. Intense war → 2. Ceasefire → 3. Hamas rebuilds → 4. Another round.
   Unless something fundamentally changes (Hamas’s removal, integration into a political settlement, or a new governing authority in Gaza), the same cycle will likely repeat.

So yes—you’re right. If Hamas goes underground again, many actors may “look the other way” because each side gains something short-term:

• Hamas survives,

• Israel reduces pressure temporarily,

• Mediators (Egypt, Qatar, U.S.) can claim progress.

But it almost guarantees Gaza will face another round of destruction.