Hamas is truly cornered this time.
Recently, Trump released a 20-point peace plan for Gaza, making it clear: if Hamas doesn't agree within four days, Israel will launch a full-scale offensive to “finish the job.”
Trump made these remarks during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the White House soon shared the details of the plan. When asked how much time Hamas has to consider, Trump answered bluntly: “about three or four days,” leaving little room for negotiation.
展开剩余89%At the Quantico Marine Corps base, he added, “We need a signature. If they don’t sign, there will be painful consequences.” The threat was unmistakable, and the tension was palpable.
The core of the plan focuses on ceasefire, troop withdrawal, and “de-extremization” measures. It demands an immediate ceasefire, an exchange of hostages, phased Israeli troop withdrawals, and the establishment of a transitional international administration. The ultimate goal is to turn Gaza into an “extremist-free, terrorism-free zone” and specifically to exclude Hamas from governance.
To be honest, the plan itself is contradictory. Hamas wasn’t even part of the negotiations, and the demand to disarm and exclude Palestinian self-determination directly contradicts their long-standing stance. These are precisely the conditions Hamas has refused to accept for years.
Netanyahu immediately voiced his support for the plan, warning Hamas that refusal or violation would result in Israel “completing the task of eradicating Hamas,” with full backing from the U.S.
Meanwhile, Qatari and Egyptian mediators rushed to deliver the plan to Hamas overnight. Sources revealed that Hamas promised to “sincerely” review it, but as of now, there has been no official response.
With the deadline looming, what’s holding Hamas back? Let’s take a look at their position. Since its founding in 1987, Hamas has built its identity around armed struggle and refusal to recognize Israel. Asking them to disarm is essentially asking them to relinquish their core principles. The clause about excluding Palestinian self-determination strikes at their most sensitive point.
Looking back at history, similar peace proposals have often failed. After the intense conflict in 2023, various mediation efforts were unsuccessful. Even the Oslo Accords, signed earlier, failed to produce meaningful results. Hamas has always been skeptical of externally imposed plans, believing that street support and military strength are their true leverage.
Meanwhile, the situation in Gaza is dire, with civilians suffering greatly. Yet Hamas' leadership seems more concerned about the internal backlash if they were to compromise. The political scene in neighboring countries is also complex. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and several other Arab and Muslim nations have voiced support for Trump’s plan. Even the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank has welcomed it, calling it a “genuine and determined effort.”
It seems that Hamas is becoming increasingly isolated diplomatically. However, the idea of the Palestinian Authority taking over Gaza is far from simple. The two sides have a history of conflict, with the 2017 Gaza internal struggle still fresh in their memories.
This time, international mediation is not a first, but the stakes are much higher. Qatar and Egypt, both veteran intermediaries, brokered a ceasefire in 2021. But Trump’s imposition of a time limit feels more like a business deal than a diplomatic negotiation. It’s not a final ultimatum but a clear pressure tactic.
The reactions of regional powers are worth noting. Iran has not made an official statement, but its media has already condemned the plan as “coercive.” Syria and Hezbollah have kept silent, and this silence speaks volumes.
Looking back at the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, Israel similarly rejected it. Now, it’s Hamas facing a similar fate, and history seems to have come full circle in a cruel twist of irony.
The situation also brings to mind the “de-extremization” efforts in Afghanistan. The Taliban was once asked to disarm, and we all saw what happened. Governance change takes time and requires local cooperation.
The “transitional international administration” mentioned in Trump’s plan sounds appealing, but the details of its implementation—who will oversee it and where the funding will come from—remain unclear. A framework alone isn’t enough; execution is what matters.
With only a few days left, Hamas faces two options: signing the agreement might mean losing their fundamental position, while refusing could lead to their destruction. It’s worth pondering whether Arafat faced the same inner turmoil when signing the Oslo Accords. Political decisions are never about choosing between good and bad, but between bad and worse.
All eyes are on Gaza now. The outcome of this high-stakes gamble will soon be revealed.
发布于：天津市弘益配资-配资炒股评测网-免息配资公司-好的配资平台提示：文章来自网络，不代表本站观点。
