Political savvy or diplomatic trap? How Hamas used Trump’s plan to strip Netanyahu of his last card

Unexpectedly, with a cool, highly precise diplomatic tone, Hamas responded to U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposal to halt the war in Gaza, prompting the president to reply to the movement’s statement in less than an hour.

Hamas said it accepted only two parts of Trump’s proposal: the release of prisoners as part of a swap, and handing over the administration of Gaza to a Palestinian technocratic government.

Hamas had previously agreed to those two points at all stages of negotiation, meaning there was nothing new in its position on the plan; indeed, Hamas even treated the two points as subject to negotiation, stressing that “what is stated in President Trump’s proposal on other issues related to the future of the Gaza Strip and the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people is linked to a comprehensive national stance and based on the relevant international laws and resolutions, and will be discussed through a broad Palestinian national framework in which Hamas will take part and contribute responsibly.”

Notably, Hamas did not amend the plan but framed it as a general framework for ending the war and deferred all of its contents to negotiations after a ceasefire. This shocked the Hebrew media: Israel’s Channel 12 said, “this is the first time the United States has not accepted the principle of negotiating under fire.”

“Booby-trapped” clauses
Trump’s plan included 21 items, headlined by the disarmament of the movement and the administration of Gaza via what is known as the Peace Council supervised by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has been accused of war crimes in Iraq and various corruption allegations, along with other points related to the departure of movement members who wish to leave Gaza after laying down their arms.

Netanyahu counted on this element as a declaration of total victory in Gaza if Hamas accepted it, and at the same time it was the key factor for Hamas to reject the plan, which would have allowed him to continue the war.

Trump repeatedly emphasized this clause as the key to defeating Hamas and the main point of negotiation with it, but Hamas did the exact opposite and put the ball in the court of the United States and Israel by accepting what concerns the prisoners and the administration of Gaza — measures that occupy public opinion as a step toward ending the war — and by deferring the “Netanyahu–Trump” clauses to negotiations that could be lengthy and about which the movement has previously been explicit, particularly regarding weapons.

The movement said in its reply that “what is stated in President Trump’s proposal on other issues related to the future of the Gaza Strip and the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people is linked to a comprehensive national stance and based on the relevant international laws and resolutions, and will be discussed through a broad Palestinian national framework in which Hamas will take part and contribute responsibly.”

It appears that ending the war is a priority for Trump, who is seeking a Nobel Prize; for that reason his response surprised Netanyahu himself. The U.S. president published Hamas’s statement as-is on presidential platforms and the White House reposted it using the same terms Hamas used in its statement, including “genocide” and describing it as a resistance movement.

By contrast, official Israeli outlets were silent for several hours, but the surprise at the U.S. response and acceptance dominated the Israeli scene: the site “Hadshot Zman” said what happened was literally a turning of the tables and that negotiations had shifted to being between Hamas and Trump, while other Hebrew media said Hamas had succeeded in trapping Trump.

Hamas closed the door on any talk of an international administration of Gaza by insisting that the territory be run by a Palestinian authority. It ignored mention of disarmament and referred that issue to negotiations.

In sum, Hamas accepted what it had always accepted and rejected what it had always rejected, while stressing that “the remaining clauses” do not concern it alone but require Palestinian national consensus.

To whom will the weapons be handed?
After the reply, details began to emerge, with Hamas leaders Moussa Abu Marzouk and Osama Hamdan speaking in more detail about the movement’s vision for the next phase and Trump’s proposals.

In a television interview, Abu Marzouk said Hamas would hand its weapons over to the future Palestinian state and that whoever governs Gaza would hold the weapons.

“We accepted the plan put forward by U.S. President Donald Trump in its main headings as a principle, and its implementation requires negotiation,” he said.

The Hamas leader also said the movement would enter negotiations on all matters related to the movement and its weapons.

He stressed that there is national consensus to hand over Gaza’s administration to independents, with the Palestinian Authority as the reference, explaining that determining the future of the people is a national matter and not for Hamas to decide alone.

For his part, Osama Hamdan said the movement does not accept any non‑Palestinian party managing Gaza, affirming that “the entry of a foreign administration or foreign forces into Gaza is unacceptable.”

“We do not accept a foreign administration of the Gaza Strip and a national independent body should be formed for this task,” he said, noting that attempts to exclude Hamas from the Palestinian political process will not succeed.

The ball is in Netanyahu’s court
After Trump’s response to the movement’s statement, his call to stop the bombing of Gaza and his talk of peace in the region, the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the foundations of Trump’s plan align with Israel’s principles for ending the war.

Axios reported that orders were issued to the Israeli army to halt its operation to occupy Gaza.

International reactions welcoming Hamas’s positive stance on Trump’s plan followed, calling for the plan to move forward and for an end to the campaign of annihilation against the Strip.

Attention now turns to Netanyahu’s government, which found the ball in its court and, according to the plan, must immediately halt the war and begin a prisoner-exchange process through negotiations with Hamas via mediators.