The Daily Populous Wednesday October 1st, 2025 night edition
Authored by inews.co.uk and submitted by theipaper

The militant group has been given an ultimatum - accept 'humiliating defeat' or be destroyed, one expert tells The i Paper

cancel email WhatsApp link share Share bookmark Save

share cancel email WhatsApp link bookmark

Hamas is likely to reject Donald Trump’s Gaza proposal, according to a report, casting doubt on the prospect of peace after nearly two years of bloody conflict.

The militant group is opposed to the 20-point plan, unveiled by Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House on Monday, because it “serves Israel’s interests” and “ignores those of the Palestinian people”, the BBC reported, citing a senior Hamas official.

The group is understood to be reviewing the US President’s proposal, which involves the setting up a transitional government for Gaza overseen by a “Board of Peace”. Hamas is expected to give an official response on Wednesday.

Israel’s Prime Minister, Netanyahu, has already declared his country’s support for the US plan, calling it a “critical step” towards peace in Gaza and the Middle East more widely.

New Feature In Short Quick Stories. Same trusted journalism.

Trump warned that if Hamas rejected the deal, it would lead to a “very sad end” and the US would back Israel’s efforts to “finish the job” of destroying the organisation.

But the Hamas official told the BBC it was unlikely to agree to disarming and handing over weapons – a key condition of the peace plan – or to handing over the hostages (its only bargaining chip) in one go.

Fawaz Gerges, professor of international relations at LSE, told The i Paper the deal was “not a ceasefire proposal, or a peace plan”, but an “ultimatum for Hamas to surrender or be destroyed”.

Under the plan, the United States would work with Arab and international partners to develop a temporary International Stabilisation Force (ISF) to immediately deploy in Gaza. The ISF would train and provide support to vetted Palestinian police forces in Gaza, under the consultation of Jordan and Egypt.

But Hamas is also said to object to the deployment of an ISF in Gaza, which it views as a new form of occupation, according to the BBC.

Despite this, a report from CBS News suggested some of Hamas’s leading members were leaning towards accepting the deal.

The plan would facilitate the release of all Israeli hostages within 72 hours, with Israel subsequently freeing 250 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences, along with 1,700 people detained since October 2023, including all women and children.

Trump unveiled his plan alongside Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Monday (Photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters).

Aid would also enter the territory, with its distribution overseen by the United Nations and other agencies that are linked to neither Hamas nor Israel.

Gaza would be governed by a “temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee, responsible for delivering the day-to-day running of public services and municipalities”, according to the plan’s text, released by the White House.

This committee would be “made up of qualified Palestinians and international experts”. It would be overseen and supervised by a “new international transitional body”, dubbed the “Board of Peace”, which would be headed by Trump and include former UK prime minister Sir Tony Blair.

While acknowledging a peace deal was an opportunity to end “two years of extremely bloody conflict”, several experts have raised concerns about the proposal’s implications, and cast doubt on the prospect of it being adopted by Hamas.

‘Many Palestinians will think it is a new form of colonialism’

Gerges explained that Hamas was not only under pressure by the “ultimatum of the US and Israel but also of global support for the plan, including from most Arab and Muslim states”, adding that these states wanted “the war over with in order to stop the massacres in Gaza, because they are worried about the political implications at home”.

He said: “There is considerable popular anger in most Arab and Muslim countries, particularly in Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and Morocco. Arab and Muslim public opinion want their governments to take a stronger position and stand up to Israel and the US, they want their governments to lend a helping hand to the persecuted Palestinians.

“Arab governments and Muslim governments are concerned over political instability at home if the war continues. It’s been a very alarming, concerning question for them – they want the war to end now, not tomorrow.”

Displaced Palestinians after intensified Israeli attacks and evacuation orders in Gaza City (Photo: Saeed MMT Jaras/Anadolu)

But he said a “major challenge is that the Palestinian Authority will have no major role to play in running Gaza” under the plan.

“This is a major problem because now you will have separation between Gaza and the West Bank. That goes against the very notion of providing a pathway to the Palestinian state.”

The “Board of Peace” headed by Trump would “handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza until such time as the Palestinian Authority has completed its reform programme”.

Gerges added: “The PA is nominally running the West Bank – it doesn’t really have any authority – while Gaza will be run by a transitional authority and led by Trump and Tony Blair.

“Many Palestinians think that this is a new form of colonialism. Again, the Palestinian were neither consulted nor granted agency.”

Anne Irfan, lecturer in interdisciplinary race, gender and postcolonial studies at UCL, said she “can’t see any way in which this would facilitate a two-state solution”.

Irfan, who authored A Short History of the Gaza Strip, told The i Paper: “The Trump plan doesn’t say anything about the West Bank, which in territorial terms would be the largest part of the would-be Palestinian state within the two-state framework.

“Even setting that aside, if we just focus on Gaza, there’s nothing in the proposal that looks like an independent state. It says Gaza will be a deradicalised, terror-free zone, which implies it will be demilitarised, but most understandings of a state imply it has some sort of military capacity or autonomy.

“Netanyahu has now explicitly said that he does not agree to a Palestinian state, which is another clear argument against any idea that this plan supports a two-state solution.”

She concluded that nothing in the plan “paves the way for Palestinian statehood – in fact I see the opposite, it paves the way for foreign occupation of Palestine by another name”.

Urban Coningham, research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi), said any ceasefire would be “extremely positive, because it’s been two extremely bloody years”.

But he told The i Paper that “one of the key weaknesses” of the proposal was that it relied on “Netanyahu’s first goal of the conflict, which is to eradicate Hamas from the Gaza Strip”.

Sir Tony Blair is among those who could be on a temporary ‘Board of Peace’ overseeing Gaza (Photo: AFP)

Coningham said this seemed “like an impossible goal”, predicting the plan would at best lead to a “temporary ceasefire”.

He explained: “The parts of the plan that make that possible is Hamas being entirely removed from Gaza, and that Hamas militants who lay down their arms will be able to go to another country.

“There is not a single country in the Middle East that will accept Hamas militants or officials. It’s a complete pipe dream that this is going to happen.”

He added that the problem for any temporary governing body in Gaza would be dealing “with the remnants of Hamas inside the Strip. People in Gaza have gone through two years of bloody conflict, starvation, not having access to healthcare. It’s very difficult to see a world in which Hamas will not have support and be able to recruit from people affected by this.

“I can’t see a world in which they lay down their arms and believe now that they equitable partners with the Israeli government and see this as a long-term lasting solution.”

Irfan’s and Gerges’s remarks were echoed by Vincent Fean, who served as British Consul General to Jerusalem between 2010 and 2014, and is currently a trustee of charity the Britain Palestine Project.

He told The i Paper: “Our Government’s position is that the [Palestinian Authority] should return to administer Gaza now. That’s one way of affirming Palestinian agency. The idea of a managing board involving Trump, Blair and others smacks of neo-imperialism. Again, Palestinian agency is essential.

“Netanyahu opposes Palestinian statehood, so from the start there is a chasm between Israeli government intentions and the will of the international community. It is that consensus – minus Israel under Netanyahu – which needs to prevail. UK recognition of Palestine points in that direction.”

Fean cited “lack of Palestinian agency” in the plan, saying: “It is for Palestinians to govern Gaza, East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank – the territories occupied by Israel militarily in 1967. In July 2024, the International Court of Justice advised that that occupation is now ‘unlawful’, and must be ended as soon as possible.”

He added: “We need clear timelines to Palestinian governance of Gaza – and reunification economically and politically with the West Bank.”

RauchenSaufen on September 30th, 2025 at 17:48 UTC »

Welcome to the 21st century where the clear loser of an armed conflict that they initiated feels entitled to walk away with anything.

Firecracker048 on September 30th, 2025 at 17:42 UTC »

"ignores the wills of the Palestinian people".

So a state isn't their will?

Unless the implication is that the People want Hamas to rule, which would mean Hamas does speak for the people of Gaza. Which if true there goes all the arguments they don't.

theipaper on September 30th, 2025 at 17:31 UTC »

Hamas is leaning towards rejecting Donald Trump’s Gaza proposal, according to a report, casting doubt on the prospect of peace after nearly two years of bloody conflict.

The militant group is opposed to the 20-point plan, unveiled by Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House on Monday, because it “serves Israel’s interests” and “ignores those of the Palestinian people”, the BBC reported, citing a senior Hamas official.

Fawaz Gerges, professor of international relations at LSE, told The i Paper the deal was “not a ceasefire proposal, or a peace plan”, but an “ultimatum for Hamas to surrender or be destroyed”.