SAEDNEWS: Trump, in accepting Hamas’s response, tried to prevent potential opposition from Netanyahu; however, Hamas’s reply does not indicate full acceptance of Trump’s plan, and tensions between Israel and Gaza appear likely to continue.
According to the Politics Service of Saed News, a West Asia affairs expert, referring to Trump’s acceptance of Hamas’s response and his immediate announcement of it on social media, said: “With this move, Trump wanted to immediately block Netanyahu from opposing Hamas’s response.”
Saber Gol Anbari, a West Asia affairs analyst, wrote in a note titled “Why Did Trump Accept Hamas’s Response?”: There is no doubt that Hamas’s response does not constitute full acceptance of Trump’s plan, which is evident from the text of the statement itself. Hamas welcomed certain parts of the plan, such as the release of hostages, cessation of hostilities, full withdrawal from Gaza, and transferring the administration of Gaza to a committee of technocrats. At the same time, other aspects, such as disarmament, the future of Gaza, and the presence of foreign forces, were indirectly rejected.
The question, however, is why Trump accepted this response amid the shock and astonishment of the Israelis and welcomed it with particular enthusiasm.
Several factors can be considered:
1. Using Hamas’s Response as Leverage:
The first factor that comes to mind is that both Trump and Netanyahu, or perhaps both together, sought to use Hamas’s response to secure the release of all Israeli hostages and gain leverage. For this reason, the U.S. president, despite Hamas’s indirect rejection of other demands, exercised restraint and accepted the response. After the hostages’ release, military actions could resume.
Even assuming this premise, the reality is that the release of hostages—even if only in exchange for 250 Palestinian prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment and about 2,000 other Gaza residents—makes it nearly impossible to continue ethnic cleansing in the same manner. This removes Israel’s main pretext for pursuing such actions.
Even if Israel uses disarmament as a pretext to resume attacks, which is likely, it would be difficult to continue the prior policies of mass killing, siege, and starvation affecting over two million people.
2. Hamas Shifts the Pressure to Trump:
The second factor is that Hamas, with its response, effectively put the ball in Trump’s court. The U.S. president faced two options: either accept or reject the response.
A few days earlier, Trump had threatened that if Hamas rejected the plan, he would unleash unprecedented consequences. However, Trump himself, having used such threats multiple times before, knows there is no “hell” left to open to Gaza or Hamas. Thus, no pressure lever remained that the U.S. and Israel had not already used, yet the desired result had not been achieved.
Yes, the option of relocating Gaza residents remains, but achieving this would have been extremely difficult for Trump, who is seeking the Nobel Peace Prize, and in the face of widespread regional and international opposition. Had it been feasible, Israel would have acted months ago. In this context, the steadfastness of the people of Gaza in holding onto their land over the past two years has been a critical factor.
3. Hamas’s Strategic Framing:
The third factor is that Hamas cleverly crafted its response to create an avenue for Trump’s satisfaction and acceptance. In other words, it provided a way to ease the immense international pressure on itself while offering Trump a politically and publicly acceptable solution amid a deadlock.
Hamas began its response by appreciating Trump and, at the start of the statement, twice used the keyword “agreement” regarding the release of all hostages and the transfer of Gaza administration to a Palestinian technocrat committee. Then, it indirectly rejected other parts of Trump’s plan in a soft and measured way, stating that acceptance of these points required Palestinian national consensus and referencing international resolutions and law.
Conclusion:
According to these three factors, Trump, having given Netanyahu sufficient opportunity to achieve war objectives, saw Hamas’s response as an important opening for agreement and political messaging. This could be leveraged internationally, particularly amid the deadlocks in Ukraine and Iran issues, as a strategic tool for his Nobel Peace Prize ambitions.
Hamas, on the other hand, saw in Trump’s plan a framework to halt the war, at least partially, and coordinated with mediators to seize this opportunity.
What was particularly striking was Trump’s rapid reaction to Hamas’s response. Beyond his eagerness to seize opportunities, a major reason was that he wanted to immediately block Netanyahu from opposing Hamas’s response. Any delay could have allowed Netanyahu to declare opposition or negotiate with the U.S. government to reject the response, which would have made it difficult even for the U.S. president to accept it.
