By Matt Underwood Trump gives Hamas ‘3 to 4 days’ to agree to the White House proposal or face a “sad end,” a statement that immediately grabs attention. The implication is clear: accept the terms of the proposal, or face consequences. He frames this as a generous offer, the “best proposal” they’ll ever receive, emphasizing the potential for “tremendous” and “incredible” outcomes if Hamas agrees. However, the alternative paints a bleak picture: a “very bad ending,” a “sad end,” which he claims he dislikes. The urgency conveyed through the short timeframe, a mere three to four days, amplifies the pressure.
The White House proposal itself, as it’s been presented, appears to center around the release of hostages. This is a critical factor in any negotiation, and the fact that Israel accepted it “yesterday” suggests the clock is already ticking for Hamas. The quick turnaround time means that Hamas has to act quickly to agree to the deal. The underlying expectation is that Hamas will accept with “minor disagreements.” It’s logical to anticipate some form of negotiation, as Hamas would likely want to tweak certain aspects of the proposal to their favor.
The core of the deal is further illuminated when it’s understood that many Muslim states support it (Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, and Pakistan) and the PA has expressed support as well. If the proposal gains this kind of widespread international support, the pressure on Hamas increases. If Hamas refuses, it risks losing any legitimacy or support that it may have among the international community. The potential implications are severe, as their stance could be seen as an obstruction of peace, and the international community could then give a green light for further military action against Hamas.
Given that the war has continued for almost two years, any attempts at negotiations have a sense of urgency. The “three to four days” timeframe feels like an arbitrary line in the sand. If the US has a way to end the war, maybe they should just do it, but eliminating Hamas would lead to the complicated question of how to deal with the population it is tied to. Hamas members can simply hide, blend in, and wait the issue out. Thus, this kind of negotiation could actually be signed.
The timing of these pronouncements raises some skepticism. The expectation is that Hamas will launch a rocket into Israel, and then Israel will retaliate. The idea of peace is always welcome, but it’s hard to believe that it will work. One has to wonder if another country should take the lead instead of Trump.
Then there are the doubts that are present in the language used, which may be intended to appeal to a certain group, but doesn’t make sense for the issue at hand. The language seems to lack substance. It’s difficult to see how such a brief deadline, in a situation as complex as this, can be seen as credible. Furthermore, if the ultimatum is not met, the outcome isn’t clear. How does the situation change on day 5?
The lack of specificity in the “security force” to take over Gaza is another major question. Without an answer to the questions of what country, how many people, and what type of army, the agreement by Arab nations means very little. It doesn’t appear as though any nation will want to send personnel. Israel can’t withdraw, and any claims of agreement seem hollow until the questions are answered. What seems to happen is that Trump will announce the failure, and then Israel will proceed with their war plan, which they were always going to do.
The ultimate conclusion is that the rhetoric is ultimately posture, lacking the necessary actions. It is also very likely that Trump doesn’t have as much influence as he thinks he does.