Hamas’s Response to Trump’s Plan: An Analytical Reading

In light of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) announcing its position on U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to halt the war in the Gaza Strip, the statement can be read as an expression of a responsible national stance. It emerged as the result of extensive internal consultations at the leadership level, in coordination with Palestinian resistance factions, as well as with international mediators and allies.

This wording reflects the movement’s keenness for its position to appear as a broad national consensus rather than a unilateral decision.

First: Addressing the Plan with a Responsible Political Approach:

The movement did not treat Trump’s plan as a single block to be outright accepted or rejected. Instead, it viewed it as a negotiating document containing certain provisions that required discussion and clarification.

This approach reflects a rational political attitude that balances protecting the rights of the Palestinian people with seizing any opportunity to stop the ongoing genocide. The statement demonstrated this by welcoming the positive points that directly serve the people (ending the war, the withdrawal of the occupation forces, the delivery of aid, and the rejection of displacement), while referring the major issues related to national rights and core principles to a broader, collective national stance.

Second: Alignment with the General National Mood:

The movement’s response did not come in isolation from the national mood; rather, it aligned with the positions of Palestinian thinkers, writers, analysts, and activists who called for a smart approach to the plan—avoiding both absolute rejection and unconditional acceptance.

Choosing a flexible, diplomatic language, free from emotional rhetoric, reflects an awareness of the need to manage the political and media struggle rationally, preserving the resilience of the people and winning public opinion.

Third: Rejected Provisions and Red Lines:

Conversely, the statement affirmed the rejection of any provisions that touch upon the core Palestinian rights:

1.     Disarming the resistance: The resistance’s weapons are legitimate and protected under international law; they cannot be removed except with the end of the occupation.

2.    The presence of an international force or foreign guardianship over Gaza: rejected, as the governance of the Strip must remain entirely Palestinian.

3.    Foreign rule in any form, or the imposition of direct or indirect guardianship, contradicts the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.

4.    Labeling the resistance as terrorism: categorically rejected in all its details — resistance is a legitimate right of occupied peoples under international law.

Fourth: Differentiation of International and Regional Positions:

The statement drew on the positions of several countries participating in the Washington meeting, thereby strengthening the Palestinian stance. The Pakistani Foreign Minister noted that Trump’s proposals did not align with the meeting’s draft, while the Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, as well as the Egyptian Foreign Minister, expressed reservations on certain provisions. These references confirm that Hamas sought to place its position within a context of relative regional and international consensus, exposing the contradictions of the U.S. plan and showing that it was not acceptable even to some of its supposed allies.

Fifth: The Core of the Statement — Halting the Aggression and Protecting Rights:

The unifying thread throughout the statement is that halting the aggression and ending the humanitarian tragedy is the central goal, based on preserving legitimate national rights. In other words, the movement approached the plan from the perspective of what serves the lives and resilience of Palestinians and what affects their rights and core principles.

Sixth: Affirmation of National Principles:

The statement emphasized that:

1.     The Gaza Strip is an integral part of the land of Palestine and the envisioned State of Palestine.

2.    Its governance must be entirely Palestinian.

3.    The steadfastness and sacrifices of the people must not be exploited to liquidate their cause, but rather to crown their struggle with freedom and independence.

Hamas’s very astute statement was not merely a passing response to Trump’s plan; it was grounded in a logic of broad national consensus.

1.     Welcoming measures that halt the war and save lives.

2.    A firm rejection of anything that undermines core principles.

3.    A calculated diplomatic discourse, presenting the movement as a responsible political actor before its people and the world.

Through this response, the movement sent a clear message: we are not willing to compromise on rights, nor to let our people be annihilated without a political horizon. Rather, we are a responsible resistance actor, balancing the protection of core principles with achieving urgent humanitarian gains for our people.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Read the article in Arabic