The plan proposed by U.S. President Donald Trump to end the war in the Gaza Strip has sparked widespread reactions and debates. These ranged from the official Arab and Islamic positions that expressed support for the initiative, to the cautious rejection voiced by a broad segment of observers and those concerned with the ArabIsraeli conflict.
It is evident that the plan was designed to impose harsh, unilateral conditions without acknowledging the need for negotiation or dialogue regarding the details of its twenty clauses. The plan appears more like a set of directives to be executed rather than a framework for mutual agreement, disregarding the collective rights of the Palestinian people and any mention of resolving the Palestinian cause. Its underlying objective seems to be the exclusion, fragmentation, and isolation of Hamas and other resistance factions from the broader Palestinian body.
Experiences from the past two years of negotiation and dialogue with the American and Israeli sides have proven that neither can be trusted at any stage of the process, due to the blatant U.S. bias toward Israel. The negotiation phases have been characterized by deceit, manipulation, and betrayal a sterile process yielding no tangible results, driven solely by procrastination and delay.
In reviewing the twenty clauses of the plan, it becomes clear that they represent broad, general outlines which, if accepted as they are, would amount to unconditional surrender. This is inconceivable given the immense sacrifices made by the Palestinian people in generaland the residents of the Gaza Strip in particularthroughout a struggle that has lasted more than seventy-seven years, during which they have endured one of the most brutal occupations in modern history, marked by suffering, oppression, forced displacement, and arbitrary detention.
The plan encompasses several key themes proposed for discussion and implementation:
Reconstruction and Development of the Gaza Strip:
In my estimation, this component is fraught with ambiguity, deception, and false promises. The so-called reconstruction plans in countries directly or indirectly occupied by the United Statessuch as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syriahave proven to be mere illusions. None of these nations witnessed genuine rebuilding programs; rather, such initiatives served as façades to consolidate American dictates, deepen dependency, and extend control under the guise of development.
The Future of Hamas:
Several clauses in the plan explicitly address this issue, reflecting the entrenched Israeli perception of resistance factions as terrorist organizations. This inherently denies the Palestinian peoples legitimate right to resist occupationa right enshrined in international laws and conventions. The plan thus seeks to exclude Hamas entirely from the political and security landscape, despite its significant concessions to protect civilians, including relinquishing offensive weaponry, dismantling tunnels, and abstaining from participating in the governance of Gaza in the so-called day-after phase. All of this remains tied to undefined details and lacks sufficient guarantees for all parties involved, rendering its implementation highly unlikely at this stage.
The Hostage File:
Since the very first day of the Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, the declared media narrative and official justification for the war has centered on freeing the Israeli hostagesor securing their releasein exchange for a ceasefire and the liberation of some Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. However, it has become evident that the Israeli government has shown little genuine concern for the safety or release of its captives. In fact, numerous hostages were killed during Israeli military operations in Gaza, demonstrating that the declared objective was largely instrumental and propagandistic rather than humanitarian.
The Humanitarian Aid File:
The blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip since 2007and further tightened over the past two years amid renewed military operationshas effectively targeted the entire population. The Israeli government continues to exert collective punishment on Gazas residents under the pretext of countering resistance activities, practicing what can only be described as a form of daily collective annihilation against civilians through deprivation, siege, and systematic destruction.
The Gaza Governance File:
The plan proposed the creation of a so-called Peace Council, representing the essence of a new model of direct soft colonialism, designed to circumvent Palestinian self-governance. This councilreportedly to be led or endorsed by figures such as Donald Trump and Tony Blairaims to administer Gaza under an international mandate. Such an arrangement is categorically rejected by the Palestinian factions, which have instead proposed the formation of a technocratic government composed of independent Palestinian figures, possibly including a limited number of Arab representatives.
The Israeli Withdrawal File:
The plan makes no mention of a clear or binding timetable for Israels withdrawal in conjunction with the implementation of its clauses. This omission underscores the fact that the continuationor cessationof the war remains entirely contingent upon decisions taken by Israels far-right government, which maintains full control over the pace and terms of military engagement.
The Internal Security File:
A separate component of the plan involves the establishment of a new Palestinian police force to maintain security and order within Gaza. Around five thousand recruits are reportedly undergoing training under the supervision of Samir al-Mashharawi, a senior figure in the Democratic Reformist Current founded by Mohammed Dahlan.
The Negotiation and Peace Process File:
The so-called peace plan conspicuously omits any credible framework for renewed dialogue with the Palestinian leadership. The continued insistence on open-ended, fruitless negotiations reflects a pattern of manipulation rather than genuine commitment to a just and lasting settlement of the conflict.
Through a review of these key components, it becomes evident that the plan not only failed to clarify its provisions but deliberately blurred and generalized them, avoiding the inclusion of any details that would safeguard the rights of the Palestinian people. It is clear that Hamas, as a Palestinian national liberation movement, is not the sole target of this plan; rather, the true objective is the liquidation of the Palestinian cause itself on one hand, and the weakening of the Palestinian Authority on the other.
The plan does not specify a concrete timeline for the cessation of hostilities or the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip. Nor does it provide any guarantees that Israel would refrain from resuming military operations at any stage of implementation, or from carrying out forced displacement of Gazas population under future pretexts of security or renewed aggression.
Furthermore, the plan does not compel Israel, nor does it contain any binding commitment, to release Palestinian prisoners according to a clear and enforceable timetable.
Hamass and other factions acceptance of Trumps plan may reflect a pragmatic understanding of the wars trajectory. At the end of any prolonged conflict, the warring parties inevitably turn to negotiation, with the victor typically imposing harsh terms on the defeated. At first glance, Hamass acceptance might be interpreted within this logic; however, in reality, it demonstrates the movements calculated assessment of the situation. The leadership recognized that continuing the war indefinitely would exact an unbearable toll on the Palestinian population in Gaza. The true target of Israels campaign is not the resistance fighters but the civilian population as a whole. Hence, Hamas sought to avoid an internal confrontation with the broader segment of Gazas residents, many of whom opposed the continuation of the war despite their deep mistrust of Israels intentions once it regains its captives.
In my estimation, unless the plan is renegotiated and amended through direct dialogue with the United States to revise its operational clauses and secure firm Israeli commitments, it constitutes a political and military suicide for the Palestinian resistance factions. Israel will not achieve this goal through diplomatic means after having failed to accomplish it militarily over the past two years, despite the massive civilian death toll, the total destruction of the Gaza Strip, and its incomplete territorial control continually undermined by the persistence of organized resistance operations that drain its military capabilities.
Therefore, Hamas neither rejected the plan outright nor accepted it unconditionally. Instead, it adopted the tactical approach of Yes, but a classic principle in the art of negotiation. By agreeing to the key element that concerns the international community namely, the exchange of prisoners the movement effectively seized control of the narrative framework. Through this political maneuver, Hamas shifted the burden of rejection onto the opposing side, making any objection to its but referring to its conditions for a ceasefire and full withdrawal appear as an obstacle to peace. In doing so, the movement opened a new window for negotiations on its own terms, after Netanyahu had already closed the door and placed the key in Trumps pocket. Hamas thus demonstrated that it can negotiate with the tongue of Aaron, but without forgetting the staff of Moses.
Following the announcement of the plan, Hamas found itself facing two difficult options: either to declare its surrender to the imposed conditions, or to issue an outright rejection which, according to Trumps warning, would be met with a hell never seen before. Yet what actually unfolded was another kind of political deluge: through an exceptionally shrewd diplomatic maneuver, Hamas turned the tables, transforming the plan from a trap set for the resistance into a deadlock for Netanyahu himself.
It appears likely that the fingerprints of several Arab and Islamic states involved in shaping Hamass official response were clearly present in the movements announcement. These states have sought to provide assurances that the opposing side will uphold a ceasefire, open the crossings, withdraw Israeli forces, and move toward a political arrangement for Gazas administration acceptable to all parties particularly the resistance factions.
Nevertheless, the option of continuing the war remains on the table, as the conditions set by the resistance factions lie in the details of how Trumps plan would be implemented conditions Israel is expected to reject in their entirety. These conditions can be summarized as follows:
A complete cessation of hostilities.
Full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip.
Permanent reopening of border crossings.
Unrestricted entry of humanitarian aid.
Immediate implementation of a reconstruction plan for the Gaza Strip.
These same demands also serve as the essential prerequisites for transitioning toward political solutions and prisoner-exchange arrangements. What could not be imposed by military force will not be imposed through negotiations.
The current phase of post-war diplomacy around Gaza reveals a deep asymmetry in strategic objectives. Hamas seeks to transform military endurance into political legitimacy, while Israel and its allies aim to translate battlefield pressure into a new governing formula for the Strip that excludes the movement. Between these two trajectories lies an emerging regional dynamic: Arab and Islamic mediators, aware of the limits of coercion, are attempting to anchor a sustainable ceasefire within a broader political framework that preserves the balance of deterrence.
Ultimately, the outcome of this phase will determine not only the day after governance of Gaza, but also the credibility of negotiated conflict resolution in the wider Middle East whether diplomacy can succeed where deterrence has failed, or whether the region is doomed to repeat its cycle of war and fragile truces.
