Trump’s Midnight Ultimatum to Hamas
In a dramatic development on Friday, the United States and its regional partners pressed Hamas to accept a negotiated peace agreement by a strict deadline—01:00 a.m. Monday, the time given in the ultimatum. President Donald Trump, speaking through his Truth Social account, warned that failure to comply would unleash consequences never seen before. He said the region could see real shifts toward peace, but insisted the pressure on Hamas would intensify if the terms were rejected.
The message framed the proposed deal as a turning point for the Middle East, promising safety and stability for innocent civilians in Gaza while seeking to continue the broader momentum toward a resolution that has eluded the region for years. Trump argued that a path to peace would also preserve the lives of Hamas fighters who remained and were identified as targets under the plan. The challenge, he indicated, was for Hamas to choose whether to accept terms that Washington and its partners say are designed to limit violence and enable humanitarian access.
According to the posting, the agreement would require Hamas to align with a framework that includes regional guarantees and direct involvement by major Middle East powers, in concert with Israel’s consent. The commander-in-chief asserted that the agreement would protect civilians and allow those with urgent needs to move toward safety, while also signaling a willingness to hold those responsible for aggression accountable. The stark message underscored Washington’s intent to steer the conflict toward a formal settlement rather than a protracted cycle of fighting.
Hamas’ Response and the Mediation Gap
As of Friday evening, Hamas had not publicly accepted the American-proposed terms. A senior Hamas figure told a regional outlet that the group was still in talks and needed more time to assess the package, including revisions to certain clauses. The interview hinted at a potential split within the organization between those urging a cautious approach and others pushing for a firmer stance.
International mediation has loomed large in the discussions surrounding the deal. Reports circulated that seasoned mediators had engaged with Hamas leaders, seeking a “honorable” agreement that could halt the violence without eroding Hamas’ political standing. One BBC report described a key Hamas negotiator in Gaza as indicating a determination to continue the fight if the new terms were perceived as an existential threat to the group. In short, the path forward hinges on a delicate balance between security commitments, humanitarian protections, and political credibility on the ground.
Egypt and Regional Stakes
Egypt, already deeply involved in any final settlement, warned of the consequences if Hamas declined the offer. The Egyptian foreign minister emphasized that while the plan could be implemented if both sides showed the necessary political will, substantial gaps remained. Cairo’s leverage as a mediator is widely acknowledged, and its stance is often viewed as a barometer for the broader regional response to the deal.
Analysts note the potential implications of a breakdown: renewed violence in Gaza, a possible widening of the conflict, and heightened tensions across Israel’s borders. The United States has repeatedly framed its diplomacy as a means to reduce civilian casualties while pressuring Hamas to abandon what it calls extremist aims. The new deadline, if interpreted as credible, could shift the incentives for all players but may also deepen the uncertainties that have characterized the past months of fighting.
What to Watch Next
The coming hours will be pivotal. If Hamas accepts the terms, observers expect a flurry of diplomatic activity to solidify the arrangement and establish mechanisms for verification, humanitarian corridors, and governance in Gaza. If the deal falters, regional mediators and Western partners may accelerate contingency plans for escalation containment, or, conversely, seek a revised framework that could chart a new course for the conflict’s trajectory.
Ultimately, the request for a rapid resolution under a strict deadline reflects an intensifying U.S. strategy to shape the Middle East settlement while navigating the realities on the ground. Whether the midnight deadline proves binding or becomes a footnote in a drawn-out stalemate, the risk of renewed hostilities remains a central concern for civilians and for international actors watching closely.
