This post will be short. I’ve written it to keep you current about what’s happened since Trump received Hamas’s written response to the take-it-or-leave-it peace plan that Netanyahu and he ginned up—without giving Hamas any say whatsoever in its production.
Recall that Hamas agreed to the plan’s requirement that it relinquish political power in Gaza and release all of the hostages it holds in one go. But on the other provisions of the plan—Hamas’s disarmament and the destruction of all of its military-related infrastructure—the movement now seeks guarantees that Israel would fully withdraw from Gaza. (Incidentally, I’ve read at least one press report, in the New York Times today, that one of Hamas’s red lines includes giving up political power. That’s not accurate: Hamas agreed to that well before Trump’s plan emerged.)
Hamas also wants a timeline, with the locations specified, for the IDF’s exit, including from the buffer zones Israel wants to retain along Gaza’s perimeter, as well as a pledge that Israel’s military assault would cease—permanently. It doesn’t make these points explicitly in its response, but a close reading of the text leaves no doubt about Hamas’s concerns, which it will seek to have addressed in negotiations.
Beyond that, Hamas will try to ensure that the “technocratic” interim Palestinian government to which it will hand over power has real governance capacity and does not turn into a servant of the Peace Board—and the Board’s externally-imposed bureaucracy—which will be headed by Trump and will include another staunch Israel supporter, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
This hardly an outlandish request: the Palestinians of Gaza should have a government that represents them, even if temporarily, not one that begins to look like the collaborator of a foreign viceroyalty.
As for the International Security Force—which will be responsible for keeping Gaza stable—Hamas will seek to make it as strong as possible so that the IDF cannot ride roughshod over it.
Think what you will of Hamas, it’s hard to see these as unreasonable points. Would any of us agree to a deal involving a high-stakes settlement the terms of which were written by the other party, together with a partner that has shown itself willing to agree to whatever that party wants? Would any of us accept a plan that has no provisions to ensure that the other side sticks to the terms and whose enforcement provisions apply solely to us? No, right?
That’s for context. Here’s where we are now.
Netanyahu has completely ignored Trump’s demand that Israel immediately end its bombing of Gaza. He reacted to the President’s directive in the same way Vladimir Putin did to Trump’s “Vladimir, STOP [the Bombing]” Truth Social post of April 24—but with one big difference.
Russia doesn’t receive billions of dollars in American economic and military assistance; Israel does: $3.8 billion annually and $17.9 billion just between Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack and September 2024, plus additional sums since Trump’s return to the White House. Furthermore, Russia’s continuing war in Ukraine hasn’t isolated it internationally; Israel has all but become a pariah. The United States and perhaps Narendra Modi’s India are its sole dependable and consequential supporters.
Trump’s reaction to Netanyahu’s defiance?
Not a peep. And as far as I’m aware, no one in the mainstream media has asked the President what he plans to do about it.
Worse, the White House and Secretary of State Rubio have been saying that the onus is now entirely on Hamas, with the President adding that it would face “obliteration” if it delayed signing the deal.
Meanwhile, the IDF’s tanks and warplanes continue to take the wrecking ball to Gaza. Dozens of Gazans, including many children, have been killed since Trump demanded that Netanyahu end his war.
There’s no sign that Israel is racing to reach a final deal.
Hamas’s lead negotiator, Khalil al-Hayya, whom Israel tried to kill in Qatar last month, has arrived in Egypt for talks aimed at refining the Trump plan, and so have representatives from Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey, who have served as intermediaries to Hamas. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Steve Witkoff, the President’s Special Envoy to the Middle East, are also on the scene.
By contrast, Israel’s point man, Ron Dermer, the Minister for Strategic Affairs, is not: he’ll participate remotely until the fine points of the deal have been worked out. Yet there’s been no “hurry up and show you’re serious, or else” ultimatum from Trump to the Israelis.
Meanwhile, Gaza’s civilian population, their spirits broken, their homes reduced to rubble, and their stomachs empty, must endure bombardment from the IDF’s tanks and warplanes for an unknown length of time.
It’s common to hear that Netanyahu is leery of accepting the Trump plan because the two far-right parties in his coalition—those of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich—will quit the government and bring the Prime Minister’s governing coalition crashing down. I don’t buy this argument. Opposition leader Yair Lapid has assured him that his Yesh Atid will step in and shore up the government if need be.
Netanyahu’s strategy is to keep Hamas under maximum military pressure throughout the negotiations, Trump be damned. He calculates that the longer it’s in that predicament the stronger his position will be.
Expect him to hang tough on the terms of the Trump plan, to reject Hamas’s calls for timelines and deadlines for withdrawing the IDF, and to insist on keeping Israeli troops deployed in sensitive spots such as the Philadelphi Corridor.
If the talks fail because of Netanyahu’s obstinacy, he can blame Hamas for torpedoing them, knowing full well that Kushner and Witkoff, stalwart supporters of Israel, will corroborate his claim and that Trump will never resort to the nuclear option of suspending American aid to Israel. The record shows that his confidence is justified.
Bottom line: If Hamas balks, Bibi wins: he’ll continue the war and keep his far-right coalition partners happy. If Hamas embraces a modified—though not by much—deal, he can claim credit for having brought the hostages back home, knowing that Trump’s vague plan gives him plenty of leeway to say that Hamas has violated important provisions (such as the disarmament requirement), especially because it contains no detailed verification measures to establish what the truth is.
Share
Like
Comment
Restack
© 2025 Rajan Menon
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104
Unsubscribe