[News] Hamas, Trump, Israel, and Who Accepted What Ceasefire

[Anti-Imperialist News]

palestinechronicle.com 
<https://www.palestinechronicle.com/hamas-trump-israel-and-who-accepted-what-ceasefire-analysis/> 



  Hamas, Trump, Israel, and Who Accepted What Ceasefire – Analysis

October 4, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald 
Trump. (Design: Palestine Chronicle)

*By Robert Inlakesh 
<https://www.palestinechronicle.com/writers/robert-inlakesh>*


          As it stands, there is no chance that a ceasefire can be
          implemented, according to the current parameters of the
          Trump-Netanyahu plan.

In a series of events that shocked the world, Hamas not only issued a 
positive response to the latest US-Israeli ceasefire proposal, but 
Donald Trump publicly announced his intention to implement it and called 
upon his allies in Tel Aviv to halt their attack on Gaza.

The road towards the latest ceasefire equation has been paved with 
confusion, to say the least. Therefore, in order to make this more 
digestible, it is perhaps more important to trace the deal’s origins and 
seek to read what potential outcomes may be ahead of us.

As an entry point to comprehending what has just happened and why so 
many nations have endorsed the proposal set forth by the US President 
and his Israeli counterpart, it is necessary to look at the document 
known as the “New York Declaration”.

On September 12, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) unanimously 
voted to adopt the declaration, which was popularly reported as a simple 
vote on Palestinian Statehood. However, UNGA votes approving the 
so-called two-State solution model have been voted through unanimously 
for around three decades now.

The real story here was the New York Declaration’s contents. Back in 
July, France and Saudi Arabia decided to co-chair a UN conference on 
reviving negotiations for a two-state solution. Days prior, Paris 
announced its intentions to recognise Palestine at the UNGA in 
September, a pledge that would also be made by Australia, the UK, 
Canada, and a number of others.

On August 4, a UNGA document was produced, which then outlined what had 
come as a result of the French-Saudi initiative. For the purpose of this 
article, it suffices to say that the different components of the New 
York Declaration that stand out as rather potentially problematic are 
the exact same as those outlined by Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu 
in their plan.

Both proposals demand that Hamas hand over all Israeli captives and 
disarm, that a foreign military force be deployed to Gaza, and clearly 
prioritise Israel’s so-called “security” over Palestinian sovereignty.

Ultimately, the key difference between Trump’s so-called “peace plan” 
and the New York Declaration is that the US-Israeli plan explicitly 
asserts that there will be no Palestinian State allowed, however small. 
Whereas, the French-Saudi initiative seeks for the State of Palestine to 
be a system devoid of any democracy, also making it clear that the 
Palestinian State they are recognizing is one that will be the only 
country on earth that will have no military.

Analysing the similarities between both plans makes it more 
understandable as to why the likes of France and Saudi Arabia, which 
just pushed for a completely separate plan, are now fully on board and 
endorse the new Gaza ceasefire proposal. It appears as if this process 
is one, where offers and counteroffers are being made, but all as part 
of a process that is meant to encircle the Palestinian people and their 
cause for national liberation. In my last article for the Palestine 
Chronicle 
<https://www.palestinechronicle.com/the-netanyahu-trump-gaza-plan-is-a-death-sentence-not-a-peace-proposal/>, 
I explained this in more detail.

When Hamas came back with its response to the US-Israeli proposal, it 
did so in an extremely calculated manner, using the rhetoric of 
acceptance, yet still outlining the need for further negotiation on 
different points of concern. In all, Hamas had accepted Donald Trump’s 
plan as a basis for negotiating a ceasefire, in the absence of any real 
agreement.

What led Hamas to this assumed position was a number of factors, 
including, on one hand, the total rejection of a surrender plan as it 
was viewed as unacceptable by the factions in Gaza and, on the other 
hand, the pressure of Qatar, Turkiye and Egypt to accept the deal.

The so-called “peace plan”, was not a detailed proposal; instead, it was 
more of a roughly put-together collection of political demands and 
ill-articulated desires, with no mechanisms to implement it. The only 
implementable part of the so-called plan was the release of every 
Israeli captive and their bodies.

However, the White House seemed to indicate that it demands Hamas 
immediately hand over all Israeli captives held in Gaza within 72 hours, 
after which they will just have to depend on Israel’s goodwill to uphold 
their side of the bargain. Considering that Israel decided to violate a 
much more detailed and phased ceasefire agreement back in March, going 
on to mass murder over 12,000 civilians afterwards, the idea that Tel 
Aviv will respect such an agreement is outlandish.

This and many other issues with the Trump-Netanyahu proposal evidently 
meant that Hamas needs to engage in negotiations to bring about a real 
deal that is realistic. Therefore, this is what they asked for.

Then came the big surprise: Donald Trump decided to publish a post on 
‘Truth Social’ that welcomed the Hamas statement, treating it as an 
acceptance. He appeared to indicate that details needed to be sorted 
out, but urged Israel to immediately stop bombing Gaza.

In response to this, Israel escalated its bombardment of Gaza City and 
its Prime Minister decided to issue his own written response to the 
developments of the day. Instead of reacting negatively, as Israeli 
media had been for hours, Netanyahu’s office indicated that they are 
preparing for Hamas to hand over all of the captives in the first stage 
of the agreement and welcome it.

So here lies the issue. Hamas seeks to engage in dialogue and it appears 
as if the US Trump administration was expressing its openness to hashing 
out the details of a ceasefire deal. Yet, the Israeli government is 
speaking as if Hamas is just going to start releasing all of the 
captives and will agree to immediate disarmament. Both cannot be true.

Therefore, this deal will have to go one of two ways: either through 
negotiations or Israel demands the immediate release of its captives. 
The latter is not a reasonable assumption, as Hamas would lose all of 
its bargaining chips; therefore, it will only proceed in the case of 
negotiations.

Ultimately, the negotiations could either lead to Hamas fully 
surrendering, which is unlikely, or the talks will begin to evolve 
towards shaping a ceasefire deal that is closer to what was previously 
proposed and accepted. It appears however, that the Israelis will 
attempt to throw a spanner in the works before the talks reach such 
stages, then blame Hamas for violating the deal.

As it stands, there is no chance that a ceasefire can be implemented – 
according to the current parameters of the Trump-Netanyahu plan – where 
the Israelis would actually stop their ethnic cleansing and even the 
war. If Hamas were to somehow agree to surrender, it would be a death 
sentence for the future of Palestinian life and self-determination in Gaza.

Although it could appear somewhat unrelated, the US has just deployed 
its USS Gerald Ford Strike Group to the Mediterranean, as other military 
assets have been positioned in a posture that points towards a renewed 
attack on Iran.

It is more than plausible to believe that this so-called “peace 
proposal” is part of a grander regional strategy. This has been the case 
in the past, with previous rounds of Gaza ceasefire talks paving the way 
to the expansion of Israeli-US military operations across various fronts 
in the region.

While it is impossible to predict the precise series of events that will 
lead to the outcomes outlined here, it is safe to conclude that this 
ceasefire deal is far from a strong and detailed agreement; instead, it 
is closer to the basis for talks.

/(The Palestine Chronicle)/


/– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. 
He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed 
this article to The Palestine Chronicle. /

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20251004/c439f259/attachment.htm>