Trump plan: Arab acceptance and a restrained Hamas response

Trump’s Plan: Alaa Kanaan

Since U.S. President Donald Trump announced his plan for a ceasefire in Gaza, it has appeared as if he were selling the world a “political deal” tailored to him. The man believes everything can be arranged with a businessman’s mindset more than he does as a peacemaker.

The surprise was not in the text of the announced plan, but in what its hidden lines reveal of Arab and international approval, suggesting the stage had been prepped in advance and the deal is merely an official announcement of agreements made behind the scenes.

Officially, Palestine welcomed the deal and described it as “sincere and vigorous efforts to end the war.” As if Trump had suddenly become an impartial mediator, though everyone knows he does not hand out free endorsements. Netanyahu, by contrast, if asked his wish, would likely say without hesitation: “I hope Hamas rejects the plan,” since that would provide him with U.S. cover to continue the war and legitimize further bloodshed.

The sequence of events before the announcement reveals much: a trilateral call between Trump, Netanyahu and the Emir of Qatar, which included an Israeli apology for striking Doha, seemed to pave the way for arrangements extending beyond Gaza. Qatari and Turkish pressure on Hamas, and the “implicit” acceptance by some Arab capitals, indicate the path was not random but paved with threads of pressure and political bargaining.

Ironically, some Arab states announced support and then, after the publication of the twenty clauses, spoke of “manipulation” in the texts — yet that does not erase the fact that preliminary acceptance was secured and the scene was set under the banner “ending the war,” while sidelining the core of the issue. Qatar publicly declared its support in a phone call with Trump. The question then becomes: are we facing a peace initiative, or a choreographed distribution of roles to present the “deal” as broadly endorsed by Arab and Muslim states?

Hamas, which has lost most of its cards in the war, has little left but the hostages. Despite reservations about some clauses, its responses read as conditional acceptance aimed at saving face rather than outright rejection.

While the movement maintains public rhetoric insisting on amendments and a timetable for implementation, the tone of its leadership has recently grown less sharp and more pragmatic, opening the door to an interpretation that Hamas, even if it has not said so openly, has one foot “under the table” on the road to acceptance, awaiting the moment to announce its final position.

The essence of the deal, as evident from its details, is less a ceasefire than placing Gaza under U.S.-Arab tutelage under the name “Peace Council,” with complete disregard for Palestinian rights in the West Bank and Jerusalem. It is a plan that grants Netanyahu political exoneration for Gaza’s crimes and turns the tragedy into negotiations over improving the conditions of the blockade, not lifting it.

But rejecting the deal is not without cost: it would amount to political death and the continuation of a limitless war on Gaza with open U.S. backing. Palestinians thus find themselves between accepting a new colonial-style deal or facing an endless war.

What Trump presented is not a peace project but a halt to killing coupled with the delivery of aid to Gaza, while others view it as a new colonial plan to seize whatever remains of Palestinian rights. Amid this anxious optimism and pragmatic pessimism, the Palestinian people remain committed to their right to an independent state, refusing to have their future reduced to the clauses of a deal or phone calls between leaders who decide their fate from afar.