Who is harmed by Trump's Gaza peace plan?
- What does Trump's peace plan for Gaza propose?
- Who stands to lose the most from this plan?
- The five key Hamas negotiators in Doha
- The role of Qatar and Egypt as mediators
- Possible scenarios: accept, reject or negotiate
- Conclusion
In a highly symbolic diplomatic move, Donald Trump recently presented his peace and reconstruction plan for Gaza, designed to end the conflict between Israel and Hamas, one week before its second anniversary. But that presentation did not come without an ultimatum: Trump warned that he would give Hamas only ‘three or four days’ to respond, or else ‘it will be a very sad end’ for the movement.
During a press conference as he left the White House, the president said that Israel and virtually all Arab countries had already approved the plan, and that only Hamas' signature remained as a condition. ‘We are just waiting for Hamas,’ he said. He added that ‘it will either do it or it won't, and if it doesn't, it will be a very sad ending.’
When asked if there was room for negotiation, Trump was clear: ‘Not much.’ He emphasised that if the proposal were rejected, Israel would have the full backing of the United States to ‘do what is necessary.’
This express deadline puts enormous pressure on Hamas: any delay, objection, or further review could be interpreted as a refusal. In essence, Trump's ultimatum turns the negotiation into an all-or-nothing scenario. From that moment on, every step and every strategic move by Hamas negotiators — including Khalil al Hayya, Ghazi Hamad, Abu Suheib, Abu Marzouk, and Mashal — will be subject to public scrutiny.
The latest reports suggest that Hamas will accept the plan, although it is not known whether they will demand any measures. However, media outlets close to the terrorist group indicate that negotiators are studying the plan in Doha and will
What does Trump's peace plan for Gaza propose?
The plan was unveiled on 29 September 2025 at a joint conference between Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, although it had previously been presented to Arab and Muslim countries in the Middle East. It mainly envisages:
- The immediate cessation of hostilities and the release of all hostages.
- The total disarmament of Hamas and transfer of control of Gaza to a provisional external authority, without the participation of the Islamist group.
- International supervision with a stabilisation force.
- Humanitarian and economic reconstruction financed by international allies.
The implementation, which will be phased, will have strict time limits, according to Trump, who gave Hamas ‘three to four days’ to accept the proposal.
Israel, for its part, backed the plan but made it clear that it would not allow Hamas to have any future political role and demanded that border control and security oversight remain under Israeli coordination. This has raised doubts as to whether Hamas will also refuse to comply with some of the 20 demands in the peace plan.
Who stands to lose the most from this plan?
Hamas is undoubtedly the actor with the most to lose if it accepts the plan. By handing over control of Gaza to an external authority and demanding its complete disarmament, it would lose not only its armed wing, but also its political legitimacy within the territory. It would be seen by some Palestinian sectors as a surrender, which could cause internal rifts between its political wing and its military structure, especially within the hardline wing in Gaza led by figures such as Izz al-Din al-Haddad (Abu Suheib).
On the other hand, if Hamas rejects the plan, it risks a full-scale military response from Israel, with the backing of the US and possibly the approval of part of the international community, which would see the refusal as an act of obstruction to peace.
On the other hand, the Palestinian civilian population in Gaza is also caught between two fires. If the plan is accepted, they will agree to economic reconstruction, but under an authority imposed without a democratic process. If it is rejected, the people will continue to face bombings, food shortages, power cuts and an almost total blockade. The UN has already warned of the risk of mass starvation if the conflict continues.
Israel, although it has accepted the plan, also runs risks. Internally, Netanyahu's government faces pressure from the ultra-nationalist bloc, which considers that ceding any kind of autonomy, even if controlled, is dangerous. Externally, if the plan fails due to a disproportionate military offensive, Israel could face diplomatic criticism, especially if high levels of civilian destruction are caused in Gaza.
For Trump, the proposal is a political gamble. If it succeeds, it positions him as an international leader and ‘peacemaker’ in the midst of his 2026 presidential campaign. But if the plan fails, he will be exposed to criticism for its lack of inclusivity and for an approach perceived as unilateral.
The five key Hamas negotiators in Doha
Although Hamas was not part of the original drafting of the plan, it has responded by deploying its core political and military negotiators to Doha, Qatar, where discussions are being channelled through regional mediators.
Khalil al-Hayya – Deputy head of Hamas' Political Bureau since 2024 and leader of the delegation in Doha. He has decisive influence in the command structure and represents the movement's most pragmatic line.
Ghazi Hamad – Member of the Political Bureau and official spokesperson for Hamas. Responsible for articulating public discourse, he represents a moderate voice that seeks to legitimise Hamas's conditions before the international community.
Izz al-Din al-Haddad (Abu Suheib) – Commander of Hamas' military wing in Gaza. He does not negotiate directly, but his approval is essential for the release of hostages and the cessation of military operations.
Moussa Abu Marzouk – Long-standing diplomatic and logistical figure. He connects Hamas with financial networks and allies such as Iran and Turkey.
Khaled Mashal – Former leader of the Political Bureau, with enormous internal prestige. Although formally retired, he is a strategic advisor to the delegation and a possible interim successor.
The role of Qatar and Egypt as mediators
Qatar and Egypt are the two main mediators of the plan, fundamental both for their geographical position and their political influence.
Qatar is hosting the talks. According to recent statements, it seeks to maintain a neutral and constructive role, refusing to become a mere transmitter of Western pressure; and Egypt, with control of the Rafah crossing, is focused on ensuring humanitarian access and avoiding chaos at its border. It has proposed modifications to the plan that would allow for some Palestinian participation in the political transition.
Possible scenarios: accept, reject or negotiate
Hamas accepts the plan
If accepted, hostilities will cease, the reconstruction of Gaza will begin with international funding, and a new political chapter will begin. However, it could lead to internal divisions within Hamas.
Hamas rejects it
Rejection would likely provoke a full Israeli military response, with devastating humanitarian consequences. Israel could receive greater diplomatic support if Hamas is perceived to have sabotaged a chance for peace.
Partial or conditional acceptance
The middle ground. This would allow Hamas to save face, guarantee Israel's security interests, and give mediators a diplomatic victory. This scenario remains the most likely if there is a willingness to compromise.
Conclusion
Trump's new peace plan for Gaza represents a crucial turning point that could set the course for one of the world's longest and most complex conflicts. If implemented, it would mean a profound change in the political and military structure of Gaza, with the almost certain disappearance of Hamas's power and the establishment of an external authority under international supervision. This would open the door to reconstruction and humanitarian relief, but it also raises important questions about Palestinian sovereignty and the legitimacy of a government imposed without direct democratic participation.
For Hamas, accepting this plan would mean losing control and possibly being left out of the political game, which could lead to internal divisions and increased tension in Gaza. Rejecting it, on the other hand, could trigger a devastating military escalation, with serious humanitarian consequences for the civilian population and even greater diplomatic isolation for the Islamist group.
Israel, which supports the plan, is itself facing internal tensions, with different political and social sectors divided on how to manage governance and security in Gaza. Furthermore, a prolonged conflict could affect its international image and stability in the region.
Finally, the role of regional mediators, such as Qatar and Egypt, will be crucial in preventing the crisis from spiralling out of control and in facilitating dialogue to find a negotiated solution, although so far the scope for progress seems limited.