“Based on the Statement just issued by Hamas, I believe they are ready for a lasting PEACE. Israel must immediately stop the bombing of Gaza, so that we can get the Hostages out safely and quickly… this is about long sought PEACE in the Middle East.” – President Trump.
What is your most up-to-date and in depth assessment?
ME-100, Middle East Chief:
Here is my most up-to-date, in-depth assessment of Trump’s statement in light of Hamas’s response and the evolving dynamics:
Assessment: Mixed signal, high stakes — peace talk or pressure tactic?
What we know now
- Hamas’s statement “accepts parts” of Trump’s 20-point plan: it agrees to release hostages (alive and remains) per the exchange formula, and to hand over administration of Gaza to an independent Palestinian body (technocrats) rather than a foreign “Board of Peace.” But crucially, it did not commit to disarmament or explicitly concede all Israeli terms.
- Hamas says final elements (future of Gaza, “legitimate rights” of Palestinians) must be negotiated on the basis of a “unanimous national position” and international law.
- Israel (Netanyahu) has publicly accepted the Trump plan in principle, but with caveats and likely unilateral interpretations.
- In response to Trump’s call to “immediately stop bombing Gaza,” Israel has reportedly ordered a reduction in its Gaza City offensive, shifting to minimal operations.
- But strikes have not entirely ceased: a drone strike in southern Gaza reportedly killed two children even after the demand to halt.
- Within Hamas, there appears to be internal division: the political leadership abroad seems more amenable to negotiation, while the armed leadership on the ground is more resistant to full capitulation (especially regarding disarmament).
- Some Hamas voices have already expressed reservations: rejecting external control over Gaza (“Board of Peace”), demanding guarantee against assassinations, and insisting that terms must respect internal Palestinian consensus.
How credible is Trump’s optimism?
Trump’s framing — that Hamas is “ready for lasting PEACE” and that Israel must stop the bombing to facilitate safe hostage retrieval — is aspirational and rhetorically powerful, but faces serious headwinds:
- Overinterpreting conditional commitment
The language in Hamas’s statement is conditional and partial. It signals willingness to negotiate, not unconditional surrender. To present it as “ready for lasting peace” is a political message aimed at shaping momentum, not a reflection of irrevocable agreement. - The elephant in the room: disarmament and security guarantees
Disarmament is a red line for Israel and a central demand of Trump’s plan. Hamas’s refusal (so far) to commit to it means the core existential security question remains unresolved. Without an enforcement or verification mechanism, it’s unlikely Israel will accept mere words as sufficient. - Trust gap and verification dilemma
Even if Israel halts attacks, the question of how and when hostages will be released—under what terms, in what sequence, under whose security provision—still requires painstaking negotiation and third-party guarantees. The space for manipulation and backsliding is wide. - Regional and mediator dynamics
Key players (Qatar, Egypt, Turkey, Arab states) retain leverage. Trump’s statement pressures Israel publicly, but Israel’s internal politics (coalition fragility, far-right elements) may push back against a total halt or full compliance. The balance of diplomatic pressure will shift behind closed doors. - Escalation risk and spoiler behavior
Hardliners in both Israel and Hamas may reject compromise, especially if concessions are viewed as weakness. The rhetoric of “peace or oblivion” raises the stakes; rejection may be framed as betrayal, pushing subgroups back toward maximum resistance. - Humanitarian desperation as leverage
Gaza’s devastation, civilian suffering, displacement, and infrastructure collapse create immense pressure on Hamas to yield to offers that promise relief. But that coercive pressure cuts both ways—it may force agreement, or foster radical rejection.
Forecast: Conditional pause, protracted bargaining, not final peace
The most likely scenario over the next few days:
- A temporary ceasefire or bombing reduction will be implemented (if not full stop), primarily to enable hostage exchanges and ease humanitarian collapse.
- Medium-term deals: phased release of hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, followed by staged Israeli withdrawal from certain Gaza zones.
- A structurally incomplete agreement will emerge: Hamas will attempt to preserve arms in some form (e.g. rockets, tactical units under local control), resisting full demilitarization. Israel will push for strong security guarantees and oversight (IDF presence, border control, airspace).
- Political mediation will shift from public ultimatums to closed, incremental bargaining among U.S., Israel, Qatar, Egypt.
- Over time, tensions will resurface unless the political question of Palestinian sovereignty (West Bank, Gaza reunification) is addressed—which is unlikely in the near term.
If things break badly:
- Israel may resume full-scale bombing if Hamas stalls, under Trump’s implied “backing.”
- Hamas could respond with renewed rocket/missile launches or underground operations, especially if it judges abandonment as existential.
- Regional spillovers (Hezbollah, Syria, Iran proxies) may intensify if momentum toward war reappears.
Conclusion
Trump’s statement is a bold political gambit: by publicly elevating the moment, he forces stakeholders onto the record, frames narrative momentum toward peace, and tries to corner Israel into halting attacks. But the underlying strategic and structural obstacles are immense. Hamas’s partial acceptance is real, yet qualified. It reflects willingness to negotiate, not a definitive surrender. The next 48–72 hours are critical — success will depend more on negotiation discipline, external guarantees, and internal Israeli and Hamas dynamics than on grand rhetoric.
ME-100, Middle East Chief
Three Corporate