Hamas’s Nightmare: The Trump Proposal

Trump’s plan exposes the truth Hamas dreads most: Gaza can be governed without its death cult, and once that fiction collapses, so does Hamas.

A “government” that steals food, hoards medicine, and bankrolls flotillas with Greta Thunberg is not fighting for liberation. Hamas has never sought Palestinian freedom. It has sought survival as a means for perpetuating Jihad.

And now, in its own official newspaper, Filastin (October 1, 2025), Hamas all but confesses its greatest fear: the Trump plan is the “day after” scenario that provides Israel a post-war plan that would end the group’s monopoly on murder and misery.

As laid out in the article, Dr. Basem al-Qasim (د. باسم القاسم), a senior researcher at the Al-Zaytouna Center for Studies and Consultations and who is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, “any explicit rejection from Hamas could be interpreted as insistence on continuing the war, rather than defending national rights.”

Instead, the Hamas “daily” suggests the death cult should appear to support peace in principle, but in doing so, “will not accept any formula that touches the resistance’s weapons or the Palestinian right to a fully sovereign independent state.” Qasim also recommends that Hamas “also insists on Palestinians’ ability to manage their own affairs without external interventions.”

In other words: say yes in principle, no in practice. Appear reasonable, remain intransigent. Keep on killing.

Qassim notes that Hamas is in danger of losing world support: “The Trump plan has been welcomed not only by Europe but by Hamas’s supposed allies: Qatar, Turkey, and Pakistan. A ‘window of hope,’ they call it. After two years of devastation, global opinion craves anything that stops the bloodshed.”

Thus, Hamas cannot reject the plan outright — it would look like it prefers endless war to relief. But it cannot accept either — that would mean the end of its “resistance” brand. So it lands on the third way: conditional endorsement. As Filastin puts it, this allows Hamas “to appear responsible and open-minded, while shifting blame for failure onto other parties.”

To do so, Hamas has already declared “openness to any initiative that stops the assault and eases civilian suffering, while stressing that ambiguous clauses require clarification and amendment.”

Next, it will demand a tie between “any discussion of the plan to an immediate ceasefire, opening crossings, allowing aid, and beginning reconstruction.” Why? Because this gives the appearance that “Hamas prioritizes people’s lives over politics, winning sympathy from Palestinians and global opinion.”

Then it should delay and drag out negotiations by “calling) for collective discussion of the plan among all Palestinian factions, turning Hamas’s stance into a unified Palestinian position that is harder to dismiss.”

Hamas should then oppose any formula that undermines resistance weapons or the right to a sovereign, independent Palestinian state.

To shift the narrative to that discussion, Hamas will once again use UN resolutions and international law to highlight that the plan ignores Palestinians’ legal right to self-determination.

And so Hamas, which hasn’t permitted an election in nearly twenty years, now dons the robes of international jurist, solemnly invoking UN resolutions and the sacred principle of self-determination. This is from a movement that executes rivals in basements, hides rockets in schools, and treats its own people as cannon fodder. One almost expects them to start quoting Locke and Montesquieu — between black-market fuel deals and the next October 7 planning session.

Hamss claims that the most critical challenge it faces is “ the plan’s impact on world opinion. The initiative was widely welcomed, including by states considered allies or supporters of Hamas, such as Qatar, Turkey, and Pakistan. Most European states also endorsed it as a “window of hope” to end the war and start a new political track. This international context puts Hamas in a bind: it risks appearing to defy a global wave of support for the plan, even from close allies. “

Qassim is at least transparent. He concludes that to keep Jihad going, a conditional ‘welcome’ allows Hamas to appear responsible and open-minded, while shifting blame for any failure to amend the plan onto other parties. “

In other words, oppose any plan that halts suffering using words that convey responsibility and reasonableness. A conditional welcome to protect the precious right of Palestinians to be governed by a death cult means that every clause must be “clarified,” every demand “amended,” every concession kicked down the road until the plan itself collapses under the weight of Hamas’s veto. In the meantime, the hostages remain in tunnels, and the black markets hum. This is not self-determination; it is self-preservation dressed up as statesmanship. The real aim is simple: keep on killing while shifting the blame to others.

The fact is, Hamas is right to be afraid. History is unkind to collapsing tyrannies.

In 1945, the Allies did not wait for Hitler’s corpse in the bunker. As soon as they crossed the Rhine, the Allies began providing limited humanitarian aid in the areas of Germany cleared of Nazi military and government control. As Western Allied forces advanced into Germany starting in March 1945—crossing the Rhine on March 22—they took control of regions. They implemented basic relief measures under the directives of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF). This aid focused on maintaining order and preventing disease.

SHAEF began running the territory. Food rations were distributed. Medical aid was provided. Civil affairs officers established order. The Reich still technically existed, but the illusion of permanence had evaporated.

That is what Hamas sees now. Relief delivered in areas no longer under its control becomes the seed of a post-Hamas Gaza. Zone by zone, block by block, Gaza can be governed without its permission. And even worse, the temporary governance and aid organization begins to make UNRWA, which supplies the oxygen to Palestinianism, irrelevant. Without UNRWA, Hamas can’t fully govern or control the provision of services and aid.

And once the fiction of its indispensability is broken, its reign is over.

Hamas has never pursued Palestinian liberation — only permanent conflict.

Its 20-year record makes the point: war, corruption, repression, no elections, no rights: tunnels instead of hospitals, black markets instead of relief, indoctrination instead of democracy. Keeping Hamas in power means perpetuating misery, not ending it.