A Calculated and Responsible Move…. What Paths Lie Ahead?
According to Hani Al-Masri, a seasoned political analyst, Hamas’s response to Trump’s plan was “smart, responsible, and realistic.” He notes that the movement’s statement reflected “a clear yes, but not an unconditional one,” showing a nuanced understanding of the complex dynamics at play. Hamas, he explains, welcomed the American initiative and expressed openness to a deal — particularly one involving “the release of all Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Israeli ones” — while insisting on further discussions over “details, timelines, and guarantees.”
Al-Masri highlights that Hamas also “rejected any form of external guardianship” by calling for a “local Palestinian administration built on national consensus,” leaving broader political questions to “the collective Palestinian leadership.”
On why Hamas responded positively to a plan that largely serves Israeli interests, Al-Masri emphasizes the strategic depth of the movement’s approach: “A total rejection would have been political and military suicide — it would give Israel international cover to continue its war. Yet full acceptance without guarantees would amount to surrender.”
By keeping the door open, he observes, Hamas “put the ball back in Netanyahu’s court,” effectively countering Israel’s attempt to present itself as victorious. This, he notes, gives Hamas “maneuvering space to pursue an end to the war without bearing the blame if it resumes.”
Al-Masri points out that Hamas’s calculations reflect a clear reading of Trump’s priorities. “Trump is not necessarily seeking a comprehensive peace — he is pursuing a personal achievement that enhances his image and may even earn him a Nobel Peace Prize,” he explains. Such an outcome, he suggests, “can be realized through a prisoner exchange and a ceasefire,” while deeper issues “will likely be addressed later on the ground, shaped by power balances and regional agreements.”
He observes that the war “will probably not end with a final settlement but will be added to the long list of unfinished conflicts.”
Regarding Hamas’s political future, Al-Masri predicts that “its central role will likely diminish after a prisoner exchange,” given the “regional and international pressure to remove it from governance.” Yet he stresses that Hamas “will not disappear,” and may “restructure itself — perhaps by separating political and military wings or forming a new party.”
However, he cautions, “unless the Palestinian national movement renews its leadership, strategy, and vision, the void will be filled by external actors — Israel, its allies, or other regional powers.”
On the issue of disarmament, Al-Masri clarifies that it is not as critical as often portrayed. “Ninety percent of Hamas’s weapons were destroyed, as Musa Abu Marzouk acknowledged,” he notes. “What remains are mostly light arms — which cannot realistically be confiscated, especially since Hamas links disarmament to the establishment of a Palestinian state.”
He also highlights “Trump’s hasty welcome of Hamas’s response without prior coordination with Israel,” interpreting it as “his desire for a swift, visible achievement.” In contrast, “Netanyahu’s government was reportedly stunned,” viewing Hamas’s reply as “a no disguised as a yes,” a perception that could influence Trump’s position going forward.
The Scenarios Ahead
1. Proceeding with the Prisoner Exchange and Ceasefire
Al-Masri considers this the “most realistic short-term scenario.” Trump would aim for a “quick, tangible win” by securing an exchange and a halt to hostilities, avoiding more complicated issues.
According to him, this scenario would “deliver immediate humanitarian relief and bolster Trump’s image,” but would not resolve the deeper conflict — turning the agreement into “a temporary truce rather than a lasting peace.” The danger, he notes, is “a short pause before a new round of fighting.”
2. Trump Backtracks and Pressures Hamas to Drop Its Reservations
Here, Al-Masri explains, Hamas faces a stark choice: “Either accept Israel’s conditions and risk domestic credibility or refuse and be blamed for missing a historic opportunity.” This scenario would allow Israel “to continue its war with broad international support.”
He points out that this scenario “could compromise both Hamas and Trump’s political standing,” potentially aligning Trump closer to Israel’s position.
3. Giving Netanyahu the Green Light to Continue the War
Al-Masri describes this scenario as “the most dangerous.” Trump would effectively side with Netanyahu’s view to “finish the job,” weakening Hamas militarily and politically before any settlement.
While this may satisfy Israeli hardliners, Al-Masri warns it would “escalate the humanitarian disaster, deepen Israel’s isolation, and risk a regional explosion.” For Trump, it would “destroy his image as a peacemaker and portray him as a sponsor of war,” though it might find support among certain U.S. and Israeli right-wing circles.
The Bottom Line
Al-Masri concludes that “the first scenario is the most feasible in the short term, offering gains to all parties without tackling the core issues.”
The second scenario, he notes, “creates a political trap for both Hamas and Trump.”
The third would “prolong the conflict and destabilize the region,” but “satisfy Netanyahu and his allies.”
This framing reflects Al-Masri’s careful and balanced understanding of the complex political chessboard, highlighting his reputation for analytical clarity and strategic insight.
