Hamas is in the difficult position of considering a comprehensive peace plan that it had no hand in negotiating. The 20-point proposal was reportedly formulated through discussions between the United States, Israel, and Arab states, and then presented to Hamas as a finished product with a stark ultimatum.
This take-it-or-leave-it approach is a departure from traditional peace processes, which typically involve lengthy negotiations between the warring parties. By excluding Hamas from the drafting stage, the Trump administration aimed to prevent the group from stalling or trying to water down the core demands, particularly the requirement to disarm.
However, this strategy risks backfiring. Presenting a deal without the input of a primary party can be seen as a dictate rather than an agreement. Hamas may feel that accepting the terms under these conditions would be an unacceptable humiliation, regardless of the benefits offered to the people of Gaza.
The group’s statement that it will discuss the proposal with “other Palestinian factions” is an attempt to build a unified Palestinian position and reclaim some agency in the process. They are signaling that they will not be dictated to, even with the weight of the world against them.
The success of the plan now depends on whether Hamas sees it as a genuine, albeit tough, path out of a catastrophic war, or as an imposed surrender that it must reject as a matter of principle. The lack of a Palestinian partner at the negotiating table makes the outcome highly uncertain.
