Khaberni - The Palestinian arena quickly witnessed widespread debate, after Hamas expressed its approval of US President Donald Trump's new plan concerning Gaza, a plan that raises a fundamental question: "Can this approval be a step toward ending the humanitarian disaster in the sector, or is it a political trap that could abort the resistance project and open the door to a new phase of national marginalization?"
From one perspective, the potential positives of agreeing to the plan can be seen as a window of hope for the war-weary Gazans facing siege and destruction. Hamas' acceptance of the plan could stop the continuous bloodshed of the past two years, leading to a ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of the sector, which would allow opportunities for reconstruction and the return of a minimum level of normal life to Gaza, where its infrastructure has been almost completely destroyed. Additionally, the clauses related to prisoner exchanges carry significant humanitarian dimensions, potentially leading to the release of hundreds of Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons, in exchange for Israeli prisoners held by the movement, which would be a tangible political and humanitarian achievement. Furthermore, opening up to the plan might grant Hamas a degree of political legitimacy on the international stage, presenting itself as a movement capable of dialogue and engaging in political solutions, not just a military faction. This shift might contribute to improving its relations with some regional and international countries, and enhance the role of mediators like Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey in rebuilding Gaza and lifting part of the blockade imposed on it for more than 17 years. The possible calming may also allow Hamas time to reorganize its ranks and rebuild its social and political strength away from the pressure of ongoing military operations and severe human losses.
Conversely, it is impossible to overlook the significant risks that this approval could entail. Many observers believe that the plan contains clauses that threaten the core of the resistance project that Hamas was built upon. Accepting Hamas' disarmament or demilitarization would effectively end its military role, which has been the basis of its existence and legitimacy in the Palestinian street. Additionally, the clauses that stipulate managing Gaza through an independent and neutral civil committee or authority would, in practice, strip Hamas of its executive authority, turning it into a politically limited faction, which could weaken its presence in the Palestinian scene.
What's more dangerous is that the plan is based on international promises and guarantees that seem vague, similar to past experiences that have repeatedly failed in previous agreements with Israel, which quickly reneged on its commitments after achieving its security objectives. Such unconditional acceptance might be a political gamble that could expose Hamas to accusations of compromising national rights, especially from other Palestinian forces that see this step as a bypassing of national partnership principles and a unilateral representation of the Palestinian issue. Furthermore, the approval could cause a rift within the movement itself, between a wing that sees calming as necessary to protect civilians, and another that considers it a disguised political surrender. It’s possible that these disagreements could be exploited by regional and international parties to dismantle the movement's organizational structure and weaken its popular presence. In addition to this, the Palestinian public opinion, which has borne the burden of war for many years, might itself be divided between those searching for an end to the siege and suffering, and those clinging to the resistance option as the only path to reclaiming their usurped rights.
In conclusion, Hamas' approval of Trump's new plan appears to be a double-edged sword: on one hand, it might save Gaza from an unprecedented humanitarian disaster and open the door for reconstruction and ending the war, but on the other hand, it might carry within it concessions that touch the core of the resistance project and the movement's standing both domestically and internationally.
Political realism demands that Hamas balance between maintaining national constants and averting a humanitarian disaster, dealing with any plan in a pragmatic spirit without compromise or excess, so that the calming is a means and not an end, and the acceptance is conditional upon real guarantees that safeguard Palestinian rights and prevent Israel from circumventing the agreement.
Between the calculations of political survival and the requirements of national resilience, Hamas' equation remains difficult and complex, but history has taught the Palestinians that unconditional concession may stop a war, but it does not create peace.
