A potential hostage exchange agreement between Hamas and Israel appears finally to be in the making following on the heels of a recent push by American, Egyptian and Qatari mediators before the US-President elect Donald Trump takes office next month. The two parties have now exchanged a list of names for the hostage/prisoner swap after the Israel’s drone flights over Gaza were halted in an agreement for Hamas to collect information on the hostages held by their battalions and the other factions to present at the negotiating table.

But several key questions remain. What is in the deal? What has been Hamas’ plan with the hostages? And more importantly, has there been a change in that plan?

From strategic advantage to practical loss

When Hamas launched its attack on 7 October, it relied on the likelihood of an exchange deal. Clearly, it was aware that complications would arise and such a deal might not happen as anticipated. But they also recognised that the hostages would be a valuable bargaining chip in future negotiations in achieving a number of strategic objectives not only regarding the Israeli occupation but also in relation to its influence over Palestinian politics, and its global image as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian cause.

For the former, Hamas has demanded the release of prominent political prisoners, not only from their own ranks but also from other factions. Among those they have been seeking to include in the deal are Marwan Barghouti, a leader from Fatah (Hamas’ bitter rival) and Ahmed Saadat, the Secretary-General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Their insistence on including these individuals so far is regarded as an attempt to break its isolation in internal Palestinian politics, enhance its national status, and influence the trajectory of the Palestinian cause. Indeed, these prisoners share a common ground with Hamas in their support for resistance as a core strategy in addressing the Palestinian issue, believing that resistance could end the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and counter its expansionist ambitions. It is also well-known they harbour reservations about the leadership of Fatah and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), while having the support of their respective factions and broad public backing. For example, Marwan Barghouti enjoys widespread popularity, with surveys indicating that he would likely win the presidency if he were to run in an election.

And this is not the first time Hamas has been strategic about the hostage-prisoner swap. In November last year too, before a deal was struck Hamas initially sought to secure the release of all Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails, but soon lowered the ceiling of expectations and demonstrated relative flexibility, leading to the release of 240 Palestinians in exchange for 105 prisoners.

The nature of the individuals released in that agreement sheds further light on the reasoning and objectives that Hamas but also the Israeli government sought to fulfill. Palestinians released by the latter were part of a list of 300, which included only women, and children. In addition, more than 90% of them were 18 years old or younger and were not from Gaza but from the West Bank and Jerusalem. Similarly, all the hostages released by Hamas were civilians, primarily consisting of women and children, while the male captives were mainly foreign nationals and elderly individuals, some of whom were ill.

Beyond indicating a commitment to resistance, Hamas’ strategy on hostages/prisoners further strengthens its image as the only legitimate representative of Palestinian interests and places added pressure on the Palestinian Authority, which has been criticised for its lack of action regarding Palestinian prisoners. For instance, their popularity in the West Bank following the exchange deal has increased three times. Hamas also seized that opportunity to strengthen ties with other actors, such as Russia. Two of the hostages who were dual citizens of Israel and Russia were included in the deal, while another Russian national was evacuated before the deal at the request and efforts of President Putin. The Russian administration stated that the release of the Russians was secured independently of the mediation efforts by the United States, Qatar, and Egypt, and expressed gratitude to Hamas for their response.

Also, during the exchange, Hamas sought to achieve two key objectives in terms of its image. The first was related to combat and operational ability, where their forces seemingly “appeared out of nowhere” at various critical exchange locations, suggesting control over the course of the war and a step toward victory. This also reinforced the idea that the only way to secure the release of hostages is through negotiation. The event, which was attended by the Palestinian public, highlighted Hamas's ability to maintain popular support in the Strip. The second objective is related to their global image, which is divided between viewing them as “terrorists” and “freedom fighters.” Published footage and videos of the swap, as well as the hostage testimonies, emphasised the good treatment they received. This allowed Hamas deliver a message to the “free people of the world,” showcasing their principles and dedication to securing a deal to free Palestinians. Since then, Hamas has repeatedly rejected any further exchange deals unless there is a complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and a permanent ceasefire.

Over the past year, Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons have doubled due to a significant increase in Israeli raids in the occupied West Bank. On the other hand, it is believed that only around 60 hostages are still alive in Gaza. Apart from the November exchange deal, Israel has managed to rescue eight of its citizens through a military operation. Unfortunately, the others faced a tragic fate. One was killed by an Al-Qassam captor, a member of Hamas's military wing, while the others lost their lives due to Israeli airstrikes and the ground operation.

And while they remain critical and valuable bargaining chip for Hamas for the strategic reasons outlined above, their significance has been downplayed by Israel, which has sidelined them for their own strategic reasons driven by the far-right government, despite ongoing pressure from the large segments of the Israeli public, demonstrated in recent protests. And while Hamas did reject exchange deals, Israel too stalled negotiations to achieve political and military gains in order to strengthen their position at the negotiating table.

Nevertheless, the latest hostage/prisoner swap talks appear to have progressed, with the first time Netanyahu's office issuing a statement to mention progress in the negotiations since the onset of the war in Gaza, attributing the progress to three main factors: the death of Hamas' former political bureau leader Yahya Sinwar, Hamas' failure to receive expected support from Iran and Hezbollah, and the ongoing military pressure on Hamas in Gaza. For its part, Hamas reiterated by saying that the possibility of reaching a deal to end the war in Gaza “is closer than ever, provided Israel refrains from imposing new conditions,” and appears to have changed its tune by agreeing on a 60-day pause in hostilities rather than a permanent ceasefire, and to the exchange of 30 hostages, including US citizens along with increased humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip.

Why is it different this time?

The ongoing uncertainty over who exactly will be released by the parties — and whether Hamas will continue demanding the release of security prisoners such as Barghouti — remains an important risk that may yet derail the process once again. On the other hand, there has been much pressure on both parties but also the mediators, Egypt and Qatar, ostensibly to finalize an agreement before the US President-elect takes office in January. Trump said earlier this month that there would be “hell to pay” in the Middle East if hostages were not released before he entered office.

It is clear that Hamas’ demands shifted frequently in the past as it strategized over the hostages/prisoners, but the prospects of an escalation in Israeli aggression — emboldened by Trump — together with the urgent need to address the devastating implications they face may explain the change of tune, and may just help secure a deal. Similarly, Israel can too appear  to be in control of not only Gaza but also the regional dynamics, having penetrated Syria to demolish, once and for all, "axis of resistance".

Will Hamas cling to the rest of the hostages? And if there is a deal, what will happen when the truce is over? As the negotiations unfold, the outcome remains uncertain. Only time will tell whether a truce can be secured, if it can be maintained, or ultimately replaced by a ceasefire. What is certain, however, is the growing urgency, with time ticking down and the stakes rising.