As we have often repeated since Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza began — first under Democrat Joe Biden and now under Republican Donald Trump — the only person capable of halting this brutal war is the U.S. President himself. Two years into a conflict that has devastated both people and land, that statement remains true.
Within hours of Trump’s threats against Hamas — warning he would “open the gates of hell” if the movement rejected his 20-point plan — the tables turned dramatically. Trump’s proposal prioritised the release of all Israeli captives, both living and deceased, in exchange for a ceasefire. He also claimed Hamas had already lost 25,000 fighters and vowed to “hunt down the rest,” giving the group a final deadline to respond.
Trump’s inflammatory post sparked speculation: what did his warning mean? Would U.S. forces actually participate in operations against Hamas in Gaza?
From Threats to Breakthrough: Trump’s Sudden Turn
Despite being consumed by domestic political battles and internal party rifts, President Trump managed to seize the diplomatic stage by offering a plan to stop Israel’s war on Gaza. He met both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House and, earlier, leaders from eight Arab and Islamic countries in New York to discuss the proposal.
Then came a historic and unexpected twist. Within hours of his threats, Trump and Vice President JD Vance published — for the first time — Hamas’s official statement of approval, translated into English, which affirmed the movement’s readiness to release all captives. In a tweet, Trump described the move as “remarkable” and thanked Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, and Turkey for their mediation, calling them “great nations.”
For Netanyahu and his far-right coalition, the shock was immense. Hamas’s statement, republished by the U.S. President himself, included terms like “occupation,” “aggression,” “genocide,” “steadfastness of our people,” “withdrawal of the occupation from Gaza,” and “our people’s legitimate rights.”
These were words Netanyahu never expected to see legitimised — least of all through Trump’s account.
Hamas Responds with Calculated Pragmatism
Hamas reacted with measured diplomacy. Its statement praised President Trump’s initiative while carefully framing its approval:
“Yes, we agree to release all captives — living and deceased — under an exchange formula, and we are ready to enter discussions through mediators.”
This response — neither full acceptance nor outright rejection — was a strategic balancing act. Hamas agreed to key humanitarian clauses but demanded further dialogue on political details, reflecting an awareness that the plan’s core intent was to test its flexibility, not merely its willingness.
The movement also accepted the principle of forming a Palestinian technocratic body — composed of independent professionals — to manage Gaza’s administration, contingent on national consensus and Arab-Islamic support.
As for Gaza’s long-term future and Palestinian national rights, Hamas asserted that such issues must be resolved through a comprehensive Palestinian framework, grounded in international law and legitimate resolutions. Regarding the demand for disarmament, senior official Mousa Abu Marzouk clarified that weapons are inseparable from the reality of occupation — linking resistance directly to continued Israeli control.
Netanyahu’s Political Isolation and the Shifting Balance
Trump’s endorsement of Hamas’s partial approval left Netanyahu politically cornered. The Israeli leader, who expected Hamas to reject the plan, was blindsided by both Hamas’s measured acceptance and Trump’s swift celebration of it.
Hours later, under Trump’s pressure, Netanyahu reluctantly agreed to suspend the offensive. The U.S. administration announced the implementation of the first stage of Trump’s plan: shifting the Israeli military from offensive to defensive posture and halting the planned ground invasion of Gaza City to facilitate the exchange of captives.
Now, Netanyahu faces growing dissent within his fragile coalition, fears of early elections once the Knesset reconvenes, and mounting public anger in the West following Israel’s interception of a humanitarian flotilla. The operation — which saw the abduction of around 500 activists from 47 countries, including Europeans and Arabs — ignited global outrage and renewed protests demanding an end to the blockade.
Progress Toward Phase One of Implementation
Talks are advancing in Al-Arish and Doha to execute the first phase of the agreement:
- The release of all Israeli captives (48 in total, both living and deceased).
- The preparation of lists of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners to be freed in exchange.
- A proposed 72-hour timeline for the process, alongside a phased Israeli withdrawal divided into three stages.
Yet questions remain: will Israel fully withdraw from Gaza or maintain a buffer zone under military control?
A Strategic Victory for Gaza — and for Mediation
Whatever the next steps, this development marks a historic breakthrough for Palestinians. It signifies the end — at least temporarily — of a genocidal war of starvation, forced displacement, and destruction, and highlights the success of Arab mediators, particularly Qatar and Egypt, whose tireless diplomacy helped bridge gaps between sworn adversaries.
For Trump, the achievement fuels his ambition for a Nobel Peace Prize, a goal he hinted at publicly. Should Israel adhere to all clauses — chiefly the permanent ceasefire, humanitarian aid access, and an end to starvation as a weapon of war (which has claimed more than 450 lives, a third of them children) — the award would seem politically within reach.
The Final Question: What About Israel?
In the end, the real test lies ahead. The full implementation of Trump’s proposal — and Hamas’s conditional acceptance — hinges on Israel’s willingness to comply.
Trump concluded optimistically, tweeting that “Hamas is ready for lasting peace — long awaited in the Middle East.”
But as history repeatedly shows, peace requires more than readiness; it demands justice, restraint, and genuine will — qualities that Netanyahu’s government has yet to demonstrate.
