The warm response of US President Donald Trump to Hamas’ approval of his ceasefire initiative took many by surprise — especially Israel, whose politicians fell silent, leaving analysts and commentators struggling to interpret the American position.
Trump’s Shifting Positions
Since returning to the White House, Donald Trump has repeatedly portrayed himself as a peacemaker, claiming to have halted wars and resolved crises worldwide. In an interview with Israel’s Channel 13, he said:
“This isn’t the only agreement I’ve achieved during my presidency — I’ve achieved several before it.”
It seems Hamas recognised Trump’s desire to secure a historic peace achievement, granting him an opportunity to showcase diplomatic success in the Middle East.
Yet behind this apparent goodwill lies the reality of Washington’s deep state, lobby influence, and strategic constraints that shape every White House decision. This was evident in Trump’s recent remarks, warning that he “will not tolerate any delay from Hamas” and that the movement “must act quickly, or all options will be on the table.”
Trump’s simultaneous praise of Hamas’ stance — coupled with his call for Israel to stop bombing Gaza — and his subsequent threat of punitive action if Hamas delays execution, have raised questions about the future scenarios of the Trump Plan.
Hamas’ “Yes and No”
Hamas’ response, neither a full “yes” nor an outright “no”, once again reflected the movement’s political maturity — often surprising both allies and adversaries alike. The statement welcomed the plan in principle while seeking clarifications and negotiations on specific clauses.
This approach effectively cornered Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, transferring pressure onto Tel Aviv and Washington, particularly after broad international praise for Hamas’ openness to negotiation.
By agreeing to a comprehensive prisoner exchange, Hamas revived a long-standing proposal it had made at the onset of Israel’s aggression against Gaza.
The movement also kept negotiations open on implementation timelines and guarantees, while reaffirming its rejection of foreign trusteeship by insisting that Gaza be administered by a nationally agreed Palestinian body.
Crucially, Hamas avoided any mention of disarmament, signalling that it does not reject the plan outright but considers such issues tied to the future Palestinian state now recognised by many countries.
Thus, Hamas’ conditional “yes” and strategic “no” have positioned the Trump Plan between two distinct scenarios.
Scenario One: The Deal That Ends the War
Under the first scenario, Trump pursues peace as a political victory — framing himself as the leader who stopped the Gaza war and restored stability to the region. Such an outcome would reinforce his self-image as a “world peace broker”, possibly bolstering his aspiration for a Nobel Peace Prize — a goal he has openly mentioned many times.
This path would likely involve Trump pressuring Netanyahu to accept a ceasefire in exchange for the release of Israeli prisoners, leaving the remaining issues for post-war negotiations — unlike Netanyahu’s previous insistence on “negotiating under fire.”
Hamas would find strong support in this scenario from Arab and Islamic countries, including statements by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Muhammad Ishaq Dar, who clarified that Trump’s plan “does not match the document viewed by Pakistan and Arab and Islamic states during the New York meeting.”
Likewise, Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani said some of the plan’s points “require clarification and further discussion.”
Such regional support could strengthen Hamas’ diplomatic hand while isolating Israel internationally.
Scenario Two: Trump’s Retreat and Pressure on Hamas
In the opposing scenario, Netanyahu could exploit his personal rapport with Trump to draw Washington back into Israel’s corner — as he has done throughout his political career.
Should this occur, the pressure would shift to Hamas, forcing it to navigate between maintaining its principles and managing international expectations. This could strain relations with its allies if they begin to align with the American position.
A Trump-Netanyahu convergence could restart the war, providing political cover for Israel to resume its genocidal campaign in Gaza — the very outcome Hamas is striving to prevent.
According to Israel’s Kan News, Netanyahu’s office has already instructed the Israeli army to prepare for phase one of Trump’s plan: the immediate release of all Israeli captives. The statement added that Israel would “work in full coordination with President Trump and his team to end the war according to Israel’s principles, which align with the president’s vision.”
However, this path poses major risks for both leaders. For Trump, it would destroy his image as a global peace-maker; for Netanyahu, it would deepen Israel’s international isolation and exacerbate its internal divisions.
Indeed, Trump recently told Channel 12 that “Netanyahu has gone too far in Gaza. Israel has lost much of its international support, and I will restore that support.”
This indicates that Trump is unlikely to back a prolonged war, especially given global outrage over Israel’s atrocities.
Between Two Choices
Ultimately, the fate of the Trump Plan lies in the hands of the White House. Trump alone has the leverage to pressure Netanyahu into halting the war.
For Hamas, the situation is clear: it has no further concessions to offer, but it must continue to manage the negotiations with intelligence and patience, as it has done from the beginning.
At the same time, the movement faces the heavy responsibility of seeking to stop the bloodshed in Gaza — a humanitarian imperative that Netanyahu continues to exploit as his last bargaining chip.
