Hamas Reaction to Trump’s Peace Plan: Power Handover and Prisoner Release
In a statement circulated through media channels associated with Hamas and shared by former US President Donald Trump on his Truth Social account, the group said it appreciated the efforts of Arab, Islamic and international actors to end the war in Gaza. The message also acknowledged Trump’s role in pushing for a settlement, calling for an end to hostilities, the exchange of prisoners, immediate relief aid, and an end to the occupation and displacement of Palestinians in Gaza.
Hamas quoted its leadership as saying: “Hamas appreciates the Arab, Islamic, and international efforts, as well as the efforts of US President Donald Trump, calling for an end to the war on the Gaza Strip, the exchange of prisoners, the immediate entry of aid, the rejection of the occupation of the Strip, and the rejection of the displacement of our Palestinian people from it.””
Context: Trump’s 21-Point Peace Plan
Trump’s plan outlines a framework intended to halt the two-year escalation in Gaza and proposes a series of steps, including the release of hostages within 72 hours, a gradual Israeli withdrawal, and a security arrangement for Gaza. A key demand from Israel and its allies centers on Hamas’s disarmament and its removal from any role in Gaza’s governance, with a post-war transitional authority overseeing administration. The plan also envisions significant involvement from third parties in mediating and supporting a new governance structure, with an emphasis on a technocratic, independent administration rather than one rooted in party politics.
Hamas on Governance, Arms and National Consensus
The statement from Hamas asserted openness to transferring administration of the Gaza Strip to a Palestinian body of independents (technocrats) grounded in national consensus and backed by Arab and Islamic support. It framed this as part of a broader commitment to defending Palestinian rights, while underscoring that future issues should be addressed within a comprehensive Palestinian framework and in line with international law and UN resolutions. Notably, the text did not explicitly mention disarming Hamas, a central element of Trump’s proposal, leaving that topic to broader national negotiations and a collective strategy involving Palestinian factions.
The group also indicated it would enter negotiations to discuss the details of prisoner releases in coordination with mediators. It framed the reduction of violence and a withdrawal from Gaza as prerequisites for any negotiations on governance and security arrangements, signaling a potential willingness to engage if the broader Palestinian community speaks with one voice.
<h2 Implications and What Comes Next
Hamas’s statements reflect a willingness to engage in discussions tied to a possible handover of governance and a structured framework for dealing with hostilities and humanitarian needs. Analysts say this positioning could open room for negotiations within a national consensus, while the absence of a stated commitment to disarmament suggests gaps between Hamas’s rhetoric and the plan’s core demands. Much will depend on the mediation framework, the readiness of regional actors to maintain pressure for a unified Palestinian stance, and the ability of international mediators to translate such statements into verifiable steps in Gaza.
For Gaza’s residents, the potential entry of aid and a formal mechanism for prisoner exchanges could offer tangible relief amid a protracted crisis. However, the path to a durable settlement remains complex, with mutual guarantees, verification, and sustained commitment from regional powers shaping the next phase. Hamas’s openness to a technocratic administration signals a possible shift away from factional governance, but any realignment will require broad consensus in Palestinian society, steadfast international support, and clear benchmarks for ending hostilities and ensuring civilian protection.
Bottom Line
The Hamas statement emphasizes national responsibility, a willingness to discuss governance under a technocratic Palestinian body, and a readiness to negotiate prisoner releases. The absence of a explicit disarmament pledge and the dependence on a broader Palestinian framework highlight the negotiation landscape’s fragility: progress hinges on credible mediation, sustained international involvement, and a unified Palestinian strategy.
