Now the situation in the Middle East is at a crucial time that has never been encountered.President Trump gave Hamas an ultimate consensus, which not only pushed the future of the Gaza Strip to a dangerous and concerned point, but also exposed all the contradictions and instabilities that have long been spared in the entire Middle East.

This contest is far from simply sitting down and talking about the ceasefire, but many aspects are mixed together, including the balance of power of all parties, the intervention of external countries, and how Hamas and others can survive. Strategies, these are all mixed together.

After years of harsh fighting, Hamas is indeed a bit unbearable, and it feels like their forces are almost consumed. Militarily, Israel's continued bombing and ground operations have caused Hamas members to suffer great casualties, Trump said, more than twenty-five thousand Hamas militants have been killed, and most of the rest are also surrounded and in a very difficult military situation.

From a diplomatic perspective, those countries that supported Hamas in the past, such as Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, are now in trouble and subject to many restrictions, so it is difficult to provide any practical help to Hamas.

Even more remarkable is the fact that Gulf Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, despite their verbal support for the cause of Palestine, are reluctant to take practical action, or even refuse to accept refugees from Gaza, which further isolates Hamas and plunges it into an internal diplomatic barrier.

It was Trump who sharply captured this, and on Oct. 3, they gave Hamas an ultimate message via social media, asking Hamas to promise their ¡°20-point plan¡± before 6 p.m. on Oct. 5, U.S. Eastern Time, otherwise Hamas would suffer the serious consequences of ¡°falling into hell.¡±

The plan appears to be aimed at ending the conflict in Gaza and helping to rebuild it, but in reality the key clause in it is destructive: Hamas must release all hostages and deliver the bodies of the victims; members who completely disarm and lay down arms can be pardoned or leave Gaza.

The Gaza Strip will be managed by a "peace committee" chaired by Trump. Among the people involved in this matter are internationally renowned figures like former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The plan says that Gaza will no longer be militarized and Hamas will not be allowed to participate in the management. Israel will withdraw its troops in stages, but no clear time is given for when it will be withdrawn. Trump declared that if the plan was accepted,"peace in the Middle East after 3000 years" would be achieved, a complete denial of Hamas's right to exist.

Hamas's response was released on the evening of October 3. They submitted a preliminary response to the plan to the mediator and expressed their willingness to implement the relevant content through negotiations. Specifically, Hamas agreed to release all hostages for a permanent ceasefire and agreed to hand over the administration of Gaza to an independent Palestinian technocracy.

They also stressed their willingness to immediately enter into negotiations to discuss details and discuss other issues within the Palestinian national framework. On the surface, this seems to be a compromise gesture, but on deeper analysis, Hamas has not unconditionally accepted all terms, especially core requirements such as disarmament and complete exclusion of governance.

Their response preserved room for negotiation and sought a chance of survival in an extremely unfavorable environment. Trump welcomed Hamas's response. We must call on Israel to stop the bombing so that the trapped hostages can be rescued safely.

However, thinking this may be a bit too simple and optimistic. After all, the concessions made by Hamas were actually more based on tactical considerations. They just wanted to avoid being completely eliminated. From a strategic perspective, Hamas's dilemma is fatal. If they fully accept Trump's terms and surrender their weapons and management rights, it will be essentially equivalent to surrender.

Historical experience has shown that in the Palestinian conflict, disarmament organizations are often viewed as soft targets by Israel and subsequently liquidated more violently. Inside the Israeli government, especially the hardships led by Netanyahu, have been advocating the complete elimination of Hamas, even at any cost. Accepting the plan may be an excuse for Israel to continue military operations in the name of ¡°security assurance¡± and, in the end, the Palestinian people in the Gaza region will face even more tragic calamities.

Since the two-year war in Gaza, 70,000 people have been killed, mostly women and children, and the risk of ethnic cleansing would be even greater if this humanitarian disaster continued.

Hamas now has to think carefully about how to choose between surrender and resistance in order to have a greater chance of surviving.They feel that even if they die, they must die with dignity, rather than stand up to sacrifice and never humiliated to live.