Overview: Trump’s call and Hamas’ response
In a high-stakes moment for the Gaza conflict, former President Donald Trump urged Israel to immediately halt the bombardment of Gaza. Writing on Truth Social, he argued that stopping the strikes was a prerequisite to safely and quickly freeing hostages, framing the move as essential to progress toward a broader peace in the Middle East. Trump also welcomed what he described as Hamas’ openness to releasing all hostages and suggested that the Islamist group was ready for a durable peace, asserting that talks were already underway on the plan’s details.
The statements come as US and Israeli leaders weigh a plan unveiled by the former president in Washington, which proposes a sequence of actions and political arrangements meant to curb hostilities while addressing long-standing grievances in the region. Trump’s emphasis was not merely tactical but strategic, tying a temporary pause in fighting to the possibility of a longer-term settlement in which violence would give way to negotiations.
Hamas’ response: conditions rather than unqualified acceptance
Hamas responded by stating its willingness to accept hostage releases if certain conditions were met. The group signaled that the release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails would be a prerequisite for any exchange, and it called for guarantees that negotiations would occur on site under appropriate arrangements. While the organization indicated it was ready to engage, it did not offer an unconditional yes to the plan as proposed by Trump.
Separately, a Hamas representative cautioned that genuine disarmament could not occur while the Israeli occupation continued, underscoring a broader demand for an end to what the group calls an occupation. The nuanced stance highlighted the gap between the call for a ceasefire or pause in bombardment and the political conditions Hamas insists must accompany any peace process.
What the Trump plan envisions
According to Trump’s outline, all 48 hostages held by Hamas in Gaza would be moved out of the territory within 72 hours. In return, Israel would release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, including those serving life sentences, along with roughly 1,700 detainees arrested after October 7, 2023. A further element of the plan would place the Gaza Strip under the governance of a transitional administration made up of Palestinian technocrats under international oversight, with the aim of guiding the territory toward a unified Palestinian framework that includes Hamas in the negotiations.
Trump argued that the post-war period should be guided by a transitional body rather than a permanent political arrangement, at least initially. The proposal envisions a phased path to peace that would involve international involvement and a redefined administrative structure to manage Gaza’s affairs while long-term statehood questions are resolved.
Israel’s position and regional dynamics
Israel’s leadership reaction framed the plan as a potential roadmap, but observers stressed that any acceptance would depend on whether Hamas would indeed disarm and recognize Israel in a manner acceptable to Jerusalem. Israeli media outlets and officials suggested limited room for compromise, implying that Hamas’ choices could determine whether the conflict would continue at war tempo or pivot toward a negotiated settlement. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu indicated that rejection by Hamas would not halting the Gaza campaign, signaling that the broader war could persist if the group refused the terms offered by Washington.
Analysts noted that the situation remains fragile and highly contingent on how both sides interpret security guarantees, prisoner releases, and the governance framework. The involvement of international mediators and the specific guarantees attached to any exchange will likely shape future negotiations and the pace at which a durable peace could emerge.
What to watch in the coming days
Observers will be tracking whether Hamas communicates new concessions or hardens its demands, and whether Israel signals flexibility in exchange terms or remains anchored to a hardline position. The role of international mediators, particularly the countries that have positioned themselves as guarantors or facilitators, will be crucial as the two sides test each other’s red lines. In Washington and Jerusalem, policymakers will be debating the credibility and sustainability of a plan that seeks to pause fighting while laying foundations for a broader peace process in the region.
