By: Prof. Dr. Mohsen Mohammad Saleh.
When Trump announced, on 29/9/2025, his plan to end the war on the Gaza Strip (GS), backed by formal endorsements from Arab, Muslim and international governments, most observers felt that Hamas had been cornered and “shrewdly” maneuvered into a position of confrontation with its own people as well as with the broader Arab, Muslim and international arenas. Some gloating commentators even claimed that Hamas was left with only two options: either surrender or self-destruction!!
The most problematic aspect of Trump’s plan lay in its conditional framework, which linked the cessation of hostilities and the provision of humanitarian aid to the abandonment of the Palestinian people’s rights and fundamentals. At the same time, it effectively legitimized Israel’s control over GS and placed it under US–Western supervision.
Nevertheless, Hamas’s response, announced on Friday, 3/10/2025, redirected the pressure toward the Israeli side. The movement succeeded in avoiding the trap set for it through a reply characterized by prudence, firmness and considerable political acumen. Furthermore, it managed, at least in part, to engage effectively with Trump’s narcissistic and pragmatic disposition, marked by an impatience for swift accomplishments.
In its response, Hamas articulated a sense of responsible national spirit and adopted a carefully calibrated diplomatic discourse aligned with Palestinian public sentiment and consistent with national principles and positions. In expressing its approval or rejection of the plan’s provisions, the movement anchored its stance in the broader collective Palestinian position, while also drawing legitimacy from the Arab and Muslim consensus and from relevant international resolutions. Its position was further strengthened by the fact that it came after consultations with other Palestinian factions and mediators.
Hamas approached Trump’s plan as a negotiating framework; neither an outright rejection nor an unconditional acceptance. It welcomed those provisions of a positive or tactical nature that advance the interests of the Palestinian people, such as ending the war, the withdrawal of Israeli forces, the entry of humanitarian aid, the exchange of prisoners, and the transfer of governance in the GS to an independent technocratic body to be selected by the Palestinians themselves through national consensus. With regard to issues concerning the future of the GS and the fundamental principles related to the disarmament of the resistance and political participation, Hamas deferred them to the collective national position and the relevant international resolutions, to be addressed within a national framework in which the movement participates responsibly.
This approach reflects a rational and accountable stance, acknowledging that Hamas neither claims the authority to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people nor to unilaterally determine their future. Moreover, it is a position that enjoys broad Arab and international acceptance, signifying, in practical terms, the rejection of US tutelage and Israeli occupation and domination, and affirming respect for the Palestinian people’s free will.
Trump, who quickly grasped the positive tone of Hamas’s response, hastened to publish it, presenting it as an endorsement of his plan. He subsequently called on Israel to halt its attacks on GS, a demand to which it was compelled to comply, suspending its offensive and ordering its forces to assume a defensive posture. It appears that Trump sought to market the development as a political victory for himself. Moreover, his pragmatism and his background as a real estate dealer may well incline him to seize upon the points of convergence in order to draw Hamas into the peace process, or at least to neutralize its current sources of strength, namely, the file of Israeli prisoners, and its control over GS. Such an approach would pave the way for conditions more conducive to isolating Hamas, dismantling its military capacity, and empowering a new governing structure aligned with US–Israeli parameters and attuned to the trajectory of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Arab regimes normalizing relations with Israel.
Hamas’s response was met with broad popular and factional support within Palestine, as well as with significant Arab and international approval. It was welcomed by Qatar, Egypt, Türkiye, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, the UN Secretary-General, and the President of the European Commission… among others. This widespread endorsement lent the movement considerable momentum, enabling Hamas to regain the initiative and once again corner Israel politically.
Hamas’s response appeared disconcerting to Israel, particularly in light of the US administration’s positive reception and Israel’s consequent need to respond, at least with regard to the phase involving the exchange of prisoners. Negotiations would no longer take place “under fire,” as Israel had preferred. At the same time, Israel clarified that the suspension of its attacks did not constitute an end to the war nor the beginning of a withdrawal; rather, it would provide a temporary calm and positioning that would enable Hamas to assemble the prisoners in preparation for implementing the exchange deal.
It appears that Israel’s response will aim to neutralize the positive reactions generated by Hamas’s stance while continuing negotiations over the release of its prisoners. Nevertheless, it is unlikely to relinquish the levers of pressure it currently holds: its occupation of much of the GS, the prevention of displaced persons from returning to their homes, the control over the entry of humanitarian aid and reconstruction materials, and the continuation of targeted strikes and assassinations, even if a ceasefire is announced, under the pretext of potential threats, employing methods similar to those used in Lebanon and Syria. Israel will also continue to exert pressure to establish a technocratic government and security apparatus aligned with its standards, while persistently seeking to disarm the resistance and marginalize Hamas and other resistance forces from the Palestinian political arena.
In any case, the state of tension is likely to persist. Although the prospects for entering, even a temporary, ceasefire and facilitating the entry of humanitarian aid may improve in the coming days, the possibility remains that the US could retreat from its commitments and align with Israeli demands, particularly following the implementation of the prisoner exchange deal.
Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations, 6/10/2025
Leave A Comment