After promoting a "ceasefire" in Gaza, Trump returned home satisfied, and immediately received news that Hamas had taken the lead and given Israel a blow.
Trump’s “20 Points Plan” has just entered the first phase and has already encountered tremendous resistance, and the conflict between Israel and Hamas has not been eased in half. After the Israeli army withdrew from Gaza, Hamas regained control here and began to clear the local and Israeli-co-operating “indigenous ghosts”. For this situation, Trump said he was “not worried” because he believed that if Hamas could not do disarmament, it would not exclude The United States will force the other side to do this violently。
Trump’s plan fails, Hamas won’t stop.
It can be said that Trump is counting on the Hamas organization's plan to "solve itself", Not only is it very unrealistic, but it does not help the peace of the Gaza Strip.。
Obviously, Hamas's move to quickly reorganize its security forces, eliminate internal "traitors" and regain control of neighborhoods after the ceasefire in Gaza clearly sent a signal: it will never easily give up actual control of Gaza, let alone accept it. The fate of being completely marginalized.
First, Hamas is based on long-term governance and armed allocations to the Gaza Strip.
Despite its military capabilities being severely weakened by the ongoing Israeli strikes, its administrative system and armed networks remain operational.
During the ceasefire, Hamas personnel were able to quickly shift from cover-up to restore social order, indicating that their chain of command has not been completely cut off.
This resilience of "broken up but not died out" allows it to still hold bargaining chips in post-war negotiations-if it is completely disarmed, it will not only mean losing military deterrence, but also losing its appeal to the people of Gaza, and then being replaced by other armed factions.
Hamas, therefore, must consolidate its authority through the demonstration of force (such as the fight against domestic abuse) to prevent the power vacuum from being filled by hostile forces.
Secondly, Hamas's survival goal fundamentally conflicts with Israel's demand for "complete elimination".
Despite its dying struggle, the Netanyahu government has insisted on "completely eliminating Hamas" as its ultimate goal, but two years of conflict have proved that it is difficult to achieve this goal solely by military means.
Hamas’s “no-compromise” is because it is aware that once the weapons are laid down, it will not only lose its voice at the negotiating table, but more likely become the victim of Israel’s further undermining of Gaza’s interests.
So we can see, Hamas’s actions have strong political symbolism。
Its act of purgeing “internal abuse” is both a defense measure against Israeli intelligence infiltration and a declaration of the identity of the “only opponent” to Gaza and beyond.
This strategy of "resisting foreign forces must first stabilize the internal forces" is not only to stabilize the control area, but also to pave the way for a more favorable position in subsequent negotiations.
Trump ignores peace and always puts interests first
It can be said that while Trump still shows strong confidence, the outlook for the Gaza ceasefire has become very dim, and his harsh statements about Hamas, as well as his vague stance on rebuilding Gaza, expose the nature of U.S. foreign policy: Treat the Palestinian-Israeli issue as a bargaining chip and dismiss real peace。
On the one hand, Trump’s “20-point deal” is essentially a product of exchange of interests, not a fair solution.
The agreement requires Hamas to disarm and give up control of Gaza, but does not specify the post-war governance model, the responsibility for economic reconstruction or the long-term rights of Palestinians.
Trump said directly that “Hamas’ elimination of the gang has not bothered itself,” indicating that he has no sympathy for the humanitarian cost.
What's even more ironic is that although the United States promoted the ceasefire, it did not promote substantive progress such as the "two-state solution". Instead, it acquiesced in Israel's continued domination of Gaza affairs after the ceasefire. This "selective intervention" exposed its "interests first" calculation.
On the other hand, Trump's threat to Hamas is actually an endorsement of Israel's far-right forces.
Netanyahu’s administration and far-right political parties see the “destruction of Hamas” as a necessary condition for political survival, and Trump’s remarks have undoubtedly fostered this radical stance.
When Trump claimed that "the United States needs to cooperate with local forces to rebuild," he actually tacitly acknowledged the dominance of Israel or pro-Israeli forces in Gaza and excluded Palestinian autonomy.
This attitude not only ignores the needs of the people of Gaza, but also reduces the peace process to the jungle rule that "whoever has the strongest fist has the final say", It completely deviates from the impartiality of international mediation。
With the intervention of the United States, Palestine and Israel will never have peace
Currently, The Israeli ceasefire is in a “fragile balance.”Whether the two sides can maintain peace depends on whether the three fundamental contradictions can be resolved:
First, Hamas's right to exist is irreconcilable with Israel's goal of "total elimination".
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly stressed that "the war will not end as long as Hamas exists," while Hamas demonstrates its resilience through force.
If Israel insists on military pressure in the future or Hamas refuses to unilaterally disarm, the conflict will inevitably resume.
What's more dangerous is that Israel's far-right faction has threatened to adopt a more radical plan if the Netanyahu government chooses to compromise, which may not only trigger domestic political turmoil in Israel, but also backfire on the hard-won peace.
Second, there is a lack of consensus on the governance model of Gaza after the war.
The "20-point plan" proposed by the United States does not specify who will fill the power vacuum-if the pro-Israeli forces supported by Israel take over, it will inevitably arouse resistance from the people of Gaza; If Hamas remains in power, Israel will not stop containing it.
In addition, the issue of Palestinian statehood has been dealt with vaguely, which essentially kidnaps the Palestinian right to self-determination on the subjective judgment of Israel and the United States. This "conditional statehood" routine is doomed to fail to gain Palestinian recognition.
Third, there are fundamental differences in the motives for external intervention.
Although the United States promoted a ceasefire, its core consideration is to safeguard Israel's security and its own strategic interests in the Middle East, rather than to promote Palestinian rights and interests;
Israel’s far-right factions view conflict as a means of gaining votes and prefer to maintain tensions rather than genuine reconciliation.
Hamas needs to maintain political legitimacy through resistance. The misalignment of the motives of the three parties makes it difficult for any ceasefire agreement to break through the framework of "temporary truce" and eventually falls into a vicious circle of "conflict-ceasefire-re-conflict".
It can be seen that the so-called US-led ceasefire is only a brief breathtaking before the next larger conflict, and the people of Gaza and Israel will continue to pay the most painful price for the interests of a handful of politicians.