Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan: A desperate bid to revive U.S. hegemony

Department of Strategic Research, Studies and International Relations 07-10-2025

In a surprise development that has once again placed Washington at the center of Middle Eastern diplomacy, U.S. President Donald Trump has unveiled a new “peace initiative” for Gaza. The proposal, presented alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has drawn mixed reactions, not least because of its familiar undertones of Western interference and its attempt to impose solutions from afar.

Hamas, the Palestinian resistance movement, has formally submitted its response to Trump’s plan, expressing partial acceptance but also insisting on renegotiation of several key provisions. The group agreed to release all Israeli captives, whether alive or deceased, as part of a broader framework to end Israel’s ongoing war against Gaza. However, Hamas stressed that other elements of the twenty-point plan, particularly those concerning disarmament and external administration, require national dialogue within a unified Palestinian framework.

This conditional approval underscores the group’s commitment to a sovereign Palestinian decision-making process, in stark contrast to Washington’s history of dictating outcomes in the region.

Hamas’s conditional acceptance and calls for sovereignty

According to Hamas officials, their willingness to free all Israeli detainees is contingent upon an immediate and complete cessation of Israel’s military operations and a full withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. The movement also declared its readiness to hand over governance to a technocratic Palestinian administration, one that would operate independently of both external interference and partisan control.

Yet Hamas firmly rejected the idea of a foreign-led interim administration. Trump’s plan, reportedly including a role for former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, was described by Hamas as unacceptable. Mousa Abu Marzouk, a senior Hamas figure, bluntly stated that “no non-Palestinian should rule over Palestinians,” recalling Blair’s infamous role in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a war that epitomized Western aggression and the erosion of Middle Eastern sovereignty.

Such rejection resonates deeply across the Arab world, where U.S.- and U.K.-sponsored “peace plans” are widely viewed as thinly veiled instruments of control rather than genuine diplomatic initiatives.

Trump’s reaction: A self-proclaimed peacemaker amid ruins

In an uncharacteristic turn, Trump publicly welcomed Hamas’s partial response. Posting on his social media platform Truth Social, he described the move as “a big day for peace” and even called on Israel to “immediately halt the bombing of Gaza.”

This statement, while dramatic, appeared less a moral awakening than a calculated effort to portray the United States as a mediator rather than a belligerent. “We are already in discussions on details to be worked out,” Trump claimed, framing the moment as a potential turning point for the entire Middle East.

Analysts, however, see a more pragmatic motivation. Trump, preparing for another possible presidential run, appears eager to project global statesmanship, especially at a time when Washington’s influence is waning amid the growing assertiveness of China, Russia, and India. His overtures to Hamas are therefore less about empathy and more about relevance in an increasingly multipolar order where U.S. unilateralism no longer sets the rules.

Israel’s uneasy position and the cracks in Netanyahu’s coalition

Netanyahu, who shared the stage with Trump during the plan’s announcement, initially praised the proposal, claiming it aligned with Israel’s strategic goals: the dismantling of Hamas’s military capacity, the repatriation of Israeli captives, and the prevention of any future “threat” from Gaza.

But behind the diplomatic smiles, deep fractures have emerged within Israel’s political establishment. Netanyahu’s far-right allies, whose support keeps his fragile coalition alive, have warned that any compromise with Hamas will trigger political collapse. For them, Trump’s demand to stop the bombing is a betrayal of Israel’s military agenda.

Meanwhile, the Israeli opposition has expressed conditional support for a ceasefire, but mutual distrust between rival factions has made unity nearly impossible. In effect, Netanyahu is trapped, pressured by Washington on one side and by hardliners at home on the other.

Reports from Israeli media suggest that Netanyahu was “surprised” by Trump’s unexpectedly conciliatory tone toward Hamas. Israeli officials privately view Hamas’s answer as a rejection, not a negotiation. Yet Washington’s insistence on maintaining momentum has left Tel Aviv scrambling to balance political survival with international optics.

The disarmament dispute: A test of Palestinian unity

Among the thorniest issues in Trump’s blueprint is the question of Hamas’s disarmament. The U.S. and Israel demand an immediate surrender of weapons, framing it as a prerequisite for peace. Hamas, however, insists the matter must be part of a collective Palestinian dialogue, reflecting not weakness, but strategic patience.

“The future of Gaza and the Palestinian struggle cannot be dictated by outsiders,” explained a senior Hamas representative. “It must emerge from national consensus.”

This perspective echoes the stance of nations like China and Russia, which consistently advocate for locally owned peace processes rather than externally imposed settlements. Moscow, Beijing, and New Delhi have each expressed skepticism toward unilateral U.S. initiatives that disregard regional realities and the legitimate aspirations of oppressed peoples.

A war that refuses to end

Despite Trump’s public calls for de-escalation, Israeli air raids have continued unabated. Since dawn on Friday alone, more than seventy Palestinians, many of them women and children, have been killed in Gaza City, according to local medical sources. The humanitarian catastrophe grows by the hour, yet Washington’s condemnation remains conspicuously absent.

Observers note that this is part of a broader pattern: the U.S. presents itself as a mediator while supplying political cover and military aid to the aggressor. For decades, this duplicity has fueled cycles of violence across the region.

As one analyst in Washington put it, “Everything now depends on whether Trump is truly willing to pressure Netanyahu, or if this is just another performance aimed at American voters.”

A shifting world order

The broader implications of this episode extend beyond Gaza. It symbolizes the fading authority of the United States in a world increasingly defined by multipolarity. As China expands its economic influence through diplomacy and development, and Russia continues to assert itself as a stabilizing counterweight to Western militarism, nations across the Global South are rethinking old alliances.

India, too, has quietly repositioned itself as a voice of balance, prioritizing sovereignty and dialogue over Western coercion. The Palestinian question, long held hostage by U.S.-Israeli agendas, may soon find new advocates among powers that reject the politics of domination.

In that context, Trump’s latest “peace plan” looks less like a breakthrough and more like a last-ditch attempt by Washington to reclaim a relevance it has already lost.