On first read, it gives an understanding that both sides are willing to approach a deal - but lack trust in the process and the mediators ability to coerce the other side to actually commit and follow through.
I don’t think this is a bad reading of the article in vacuum, but I don’t think it’s a fair reading of the situation because AP intentionally or unintentionally has left quite a bit out. Hamas agreed to a US-backed ceasefire back in May that Israel refused. There was plenty of trust on both sides that they’d get what was in the deal, but Israel didn’t want that particular deal at that particular time.
What’s happening now is Hamas wants Israel to remove their troops and generally stop killing Palestinians, in addition to the other parts of the deal. Israel refuses to put this in writing, saying they’ll stop killing people for now, but they’re going to leave troops behind to occupy the area - but eventually they’ll remove those troops. You’re right that Hamas doesn’t trust Israel’s going to remove those troops, and I think that’s entirely reasonable given how the “bridging proposal” is a variation of May’s proposal, but striking out things like withdrawing troops. Seems like if that’s those are the major changes they’re making to the written proposal, they probably don’t plan on following through.
But it’s also entirely unreasonable for Israel to strike that in the first place. The Palestinians don’t want Israel to be an occupying force. There’s nothing they can do about the civilians continuing to settle and take their land, but at the very least they’re asking for the additional soldiers that have invaded the land in the last year to get out while they’re not actively killing Palestinians.
On top of that, Israel’s occupation of the Philadelphi Corridor and Rafah crossing is in violation of the Camp David agreements with Egypt. It’s really difficult to trust you can make a deal with somebody who’s currently not following the agreement they have with your mediator.