Hamas’ Reaction to Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan Faces Significant Obstacles

September 30,2025

Trump-Brokered gaza Plan faces Resistance and Internal Scrutiny

Donald trump and Benjamin Netanyahu discussed the proposed Gaza peace plan during a recent meeting.

Washington D.C. – A newly unveiled peace proposal for the Gaza Strip, developed with the involvement of former President Donald trump, is encountering important opposition from hamas and facing internal challenges within the israeli government. The plan, crafted with input from figures like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, along with representatives from various nations, has yet too receive a formal response from Hamas, though initial indications suggest strong reservations.

Hamas Rejects Key Conditions

Hamas officials, speaking to the BBC, have expressed concerns that the plan largely disregards Palestinian interests. Critics within the association have labeled the proposal as heavily biased towards Israel and containing “impractical conditions.” A central sticking point involves the demand for Hamas to release all remaining hostages, a move that would relinquish a crucial point of leverage. Furthermore, Hamas consistently resists calls for its disarmament and dissolution of its military capabilities.

Netanyahu Navigates Domestic Opposition

Implementation within Israel is far from guaranteed. While prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initially agreed to the framework during discussions with Trump, he faces strong internal resistance. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a prominent figure on the right-wing of Israeli politics, has denounced the plan as a “blatant diplomatic failure,” predicting it will ultimately collapse. Both Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir have previously opposed concessions aimed at ending the current conflict and have threatened to destabilize the coalition government.

Reports indicate that Netanyahu actively sought to modify the plan prior to his conversations with Trump,securing last-minute changes through intermediaries Witkoff and Kushner. These adjustments reportedly included slowing down and limiting the scope of the proposed Israeli military withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

“Now the whole world, including the Arab and muslim world, puts pressure on Hamas to accept the conditions that we have worked out together with Trump in order to bring back all hostages – the living and the dead – while the Israeli army remains in the largest part of the Gaza Strip,” Netanyahu stated in a recent social media post.

proposed Withdrawal and Security Concerns

A core demand from Hamas has consistently been the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip. The current proposal outlines a “moderate withdrawal” to an unspecified line, a condition likely to be unacceptable to Hamas. According to sources, Hamas would be required to release hostages within 72 hours of agreement on the plan, a stipulation linked to the pace of the israeli withdrawal.

Key Plan Element	Hamas position	Israeli Government position
Israeli Withdrawal	Complete Withdrawal Required	“Moderate” Withdrawal & Continued Security Presence
Hostage Release	Conditional, Tied to Withdrawal	Prior Condition for Progress
Hamas Disarmament	Firmly Opposed	Key Demand

An “Ultimatum” Issued to Hamas?

Netanyahu has indicated a firm stance, suggesting that Israel will proceed with its objectives in the Gaza Strip if Hamas rejects the agreement or attempts to undermine it. Should hamas refuse the proposal, Israel anticipates receiving the “full support” of the United States to eliminate the perceived threat posed by the organization. The New York Times has characterized this as an “ultimatum” to hamas, possibly escalating military operations.

More on the subject

Trump sees the solution for the Gaza war “vrey close”

Vagueness and Future Negotiations

Many elements of the plan remain ambiguous, necessitating further negotiations. Details regarding the extent of israel’s withdrawal, hostage release procedures, and the structure of a post-conflict government remain undefined. Experts suggest that every aspect of the plan will be subject to further debate and refinement.

The proposal’s stance on a future Palestinian state is also unclear, although it does not explicitly rule it out. It envisions a reformed Palestinian Authority as a prerequisite for eventual self-determination. Though, Netanyahu has publicly stated there is no provision for a Palestinian state within the framework.

The plan calls for a transitional government in Gaza, overseen by a Peace Council, with the eventual handover to a reformed Palestinian Authority.It also emphasizes that no residents will be forced to leave Gaza.

Understanding the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the world’s most enduring and complex geopolitical disputes. Rooted in competing claims to the same territory, the conflict has spanned decades, punctuated by periods of intense violence and stalled peace efforts. Key issues include borders, settlements, the status of Jerusalem, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees. According to the United Nations, over 700,000 Palestinians were displaced during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and remain refugees or their descendants today. (Source: UN Palestine)

Did You Know? The Oslo Accords, signed in the 1990s, represented a significant attempt at a two-state solution but ultimately failed to achieve a lasting peace.

Frequently Asked Questions

• What is the main sticking point for Hamas regarding this peace plan? The primary objection centers on the demand for hamas to release hostages without guarantees of a complete Israeli withdrawal from gaza.
• What changes did Netanyahu secure in Trump’s original proposal? Netanyahu reportedly slowed down and limited the scope of the proposed Israeli military withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.
• What is Israel’s current position on a two-state solution? While the plan does not explicitly rule out a Palestinian state, netanyahu has publicly stated there is no provision for one as part of this agreement.
• what role is Tony Blair expected to play in the proposed transitional government? Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is slated to participate in a Peace Council overseeing the transitional government in Gaza.
• Is the plan likely to succeed given the current opposition? The plan faces significant hurdles and its success is highly uncertain, requiring significant concessions from all parties involved.

What are your thoughts on this new peace proposal? Do you believe a lasting resolution to the conflict is achievable in the near future?

How has Hamas’s ideological commitment to the “right of return” historically shaped its rejection of peace plans?

The Core of the Trump Plan & Initial Hamas Response

Donald Trump’s “Deal of the Century,” unveiled in 2020,proposed a vision for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Key elements included recognizing Israeli sovereignty over settlements in the West Bank, establishing Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital, and offering limited Palestinian statehood in a reduced territory. Hamas, the governing body of the Gaza Strip as 2007, unequivocally rejected the plan from the outset. This rejection wasn’t simply political posturing; it stemmed from fundamental disagreements with the plan’s core tenets.

* Sovereignty & Borders: Hamas views the entire land as historically Palestinian and rejects any legitimization of Israeli settlements. The proposed borders were deemed unacceptable, offering Palestinians significantly less land than they claim.

* Jerusalem: The plan’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital was a non-starter for Hamas, which insists on East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.

* Right of return: The plan largely ignored the Palestinian demand for the right of return for refugees displaced during the 1948 and 1967 wars – a central tenet of Hamas’ ideology.

Initial reactions included strong condemnations from Hamas leadership, public demonstrations in Gaza, and a reaffirmation of armed resistance. The group framed the plan as a betrayal of Palestinian rights and a tool to further entrench Israeli occupation.The term “Deal of the Century” was ofen used sarcastically, rebranded as the “Slap of the Century” by Hamas officials.

Obstacles to Acceptance: ideological & Political Divisions

Several factors contribute to the enduring obstacles preventing any potential Hamas acceptance of a revised or similar peace plan. These extend beyond the immediate specifics of the Trump plan.

ideological Rigidity

Hamas’ charter, while undergoing some revisions, still contains language considered anti-Semitic and committed to the destruction of Israel.This foundational ideology presents a significant hurdle. While some Hamas leaders have hinted at accepting a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, a complete renunciation of its core beliefs remains unlikely. This ideological stance is reinforced by its base of support, many of whom adhere to a similar worldview.

Internal palestinian Divisions

The deep rift between Hamas and Fatah, the dominant party in the West Bank-based palestinian Authority, further complicates matters. Fatah engaged in limited negotiations with the Trump governance, despite strong reservations. This created a perception within Hamas that Fatah was willing to compromise on fundamental principles. Any future peace plan would require a unified Palestinian front, which currently seems improbable. Attempts at reconciliation have repeatedly failed, hampered by power struggles and differing political strategies.

Regional Geopolitics & Hamas’ Alliances

Hamas receives support from various regional actors, including Qatar and Turkey.these countries have differing agendas and levels of influence. Qatar, for example, provides significant financial aid to Gaza, while Turkey offers political support. these alliances strengthen Hamas’ position and reduce its incentive to compromise. Furthermore, the evolving geopolitical landscape in the Middle East, including the abraham Accords normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab states, has created a complex surroundings where Hamas feels increasingly isolated.

The Impact of the October 7th Attacks & Subsequent Conflict

The October 7th, 2023 attacks by Hamas on Israel and the ensuing conflict in Gaza have dramatically altered the landscape. The attacks, and Israel’s forceful response, have hardened positions on both sides.

* increased Radicalization: The conflict has likely fueled radicalization within Hamas and among its supporters.

* Diminished Negotiating Leverage: Hamas’ military capabilities have been significantly degraded, potentially weakening its negotiating leverage. Though, the scale of destruction in Gaza has also garnered increased international attention to the Palestinian cause.

* focus on Immediate Survival: Hamas’ immediate focus is on survival and rebuilding Gaza, making long-term peace negotiations a distant priority. The humanitarian crisis in gaza further complicates any prospects for dialog.

* The Case of Yasser Abu Shabaab: Recent reports,like those from Le Sunday Times detailing the internal opposition to Hamas led by figures like Yasser Abu Shabaab,highlight potential fractures within the institution. While not directly related to the peace plan, these internal dynamics could influence future decision-making.

Potential Future Scenarios & Obstacles Remaining

While a swift resolution remains unlikely, several potential scenarios could emerge.

1. Ceasefire & Indirect negotiations: A sustained ceasefire, mediated by regional and international actors, could create space for indirect negotiations. Though, any such negotiations would likely focus on immediate issues like prisoner exchanges and humanitarian aid, rather than a comprehensive peace plan.
2. Post-Conflict Reconstruction & Political Reform: A long-term reconstruction effort in Gaza, coupled with political reforms within the Palestinian Authority, could create a more conducive environment for future negotiations.This would require significant international investment and a commitment from all parties to address the root causes of the conflict.
3. Continued stalemate & Periodic Escalations: The most