WANA (Oct 04) – A few hours earlier, Hamas announced its acceptance of certain parts of Donald Trump’s proposal, while leaving other parts to be determined through further negotiations.

 

Trump’s plan included an immediate ceasefire, a full exchange of Israeli captives and Palestinian prisoners, a phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, the complete disarmament of Hamas, and the establishment of a transitional government under the supervision of an international body. Hamas had previously rejected the condition of disarmament.

 

In a post on Truth Social, Trump described Hamas’s response as a sign of the movement’s readiness for a “lasting peace,” and called for Israel to immediately halt its bombardment of Gaza.

According to some analyses, Hamas, through a calculated response, not only refused to retreat from its core demands but also introduced precise modifications to the 20-point plan, convincing Trump to pressure Israel and ultimately agree to a ceasefire.

 

The statement issued by Hamas, and accepted by Trump, contains several key differences from Trump’s original plan. From this perspective, it is seen as advantageous for the resistance:

 

1. Discussion of details

Trump’s plan made no mention of negotiating details with Hamas, and what was included concerned issues outside Hamas’s direct domain. Yet Hamas succeeded in inserting itself into the framework of future talks.

2. Administration of Gaza by a Palestinian body composed of independent technocrats based on national consensus

Trump’s plan contained no reference to Palestinian national consensus in selecting members of the executive body to govern Gaza, but Hamas added this clause.

 

3. Reliance on Arab and Islamic support for Gaza’s future

While Trump’s proposal limited itself to consultations with certain Arab states, Hamas’s statement stressed the necessity of both Arab and Islamic support for Gaza’s future.

 

4. Commitment to a Palestinian framework

Hamas’s statement described Palestinians’ inherent rights as a “national and comprehensive position grounded in international laws and resolutions” that must be addressed within a broad Palestinian framework. Such a clause was absent from Trump’s plan.

5. Emphasis on international law and resolutions

By invoking “international laws and resolutions,” Hamas tied the future of Palestine to international legal frameworks—an approach at odds with much of Trump’s plan. This phrasing could serve Hamas in future negotiations.

 

6. Hamas will remain

Trump’s plan explicitly mentioned eliminating Hamas, exiling its leaders, disarming its members, and similar measures. In contrast, the accepted statement acknowledged Hamas as part of the national framework, in which it would take part responsibly.

 

For these reasons, many observers interpret the outcome as a sign that Hamas gained the upper hand in the negotiations.