Trump’s Gaza peace plan faces major obstacle: Hamas refuses disarmament, PA governance. Why Hamas has leverage to block deal & alternative scenarios explained.
Table of Contents
- Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan Explained
- Hamas’s Position and Demands
- Why Hamas Can Block the Deal
- The Regional Players’ Roles
- Alternative Scenarios
- FAQ
Trump’s Latest Middle East Initiative
Former President Donald Trump, positioning himself for a 2026 return to power, unveiled his administration’s proposed framework for resolving the Gaza conflict last week—a plan that faces its greatest obstacle not from Israel, Palestinian Authority, or regional powers, but from Hamas itself.
The Plan’s Core Elements
Trump’s Gaza Framework (Announced October 8, 2025):
💰 Economic Component:
- $50 billion investment fund for Gaza reconstruction
- Saudi Arabia, UAE pledging $30 billion
- Private sector investment encouraged
- Infrastructure rebuilding over 10 years
🏛️ Governance Structure:
- Palestinian Authority to govern Gaza
- Hamas required to disarm
- International peacekeeping force (likely Arab League-led)
- Elections within 2 years of implementation
🛡️ Security Arrangements:
- Israel retains security control at borders
- Demilitarized Gaza
- International monitoring
- Counter-terrorism cooperation
🌍 Regional Integration:
- Gaza economic zone connected to Egypt, Israel
- Trade corridors established
- Port development under international supervision
- Regional normalization framework
The Incentives:
For Palestinians:
- Massive economic development
- International recognition
- Improved living conditions
- Path to eventual statehood (vague)
For Israel:
- Hamas disarmed
- Security guarantees
- Regional normalization
- U.S. defense commitments
For Regional Powers:
- Stability in contested area
- Economic opportunities
- Enhanced U.S. relationships
- Counter-Iran coalition building
Why This Sounds Familiar
Similarities to Previous Plans:
📋 Trump’s 2020 “Deal of the Century”:
- Also emphasized economics over politics
- Required Palestinian concessions upfront
- Garnered Arab state support
- Palestinians rejected immediately
📋 Oslo Accords (1993):
- Phased approach
- Economic development promises
- Security cooperation
- Failed implementation
Key Difference:
Trump claims Hamas’s weakened position post-2023 conflict makes acceptance more likely. Critics say that’s precisely wrong.
Hamas’s Position: Why They’re Saying No
Official Hamas Response
💬 Hamas Political Bureau Statement (October 9):
“Any plan that requires our disarmament, accepts Israeli security control, or excludes Hamas from governance is a non-starter. We are the legitimate resistance to occupation. We do not negotiate our right to exist or defend our people.”
Hamas’s Core Demands
Non-Negotiable Positions:
🔴 No Disarmament:
- Views arms as deterrent against Israel
- “Resistance is legitimate right”
- Disarming = surrender in their framing
- Would end Hamas’s military relevance
🔴 No PA Governance Without Hamas:
- PA viewed as collaborators
- Demand power-sharing at minimum
- “We won Gaza through elections” (2006)
- Won’t accept being sidelined
🔴 End to Israeli Blockade:
- Control of borders, airspace, waters
- No Israeli security oversight
- Direct access to outside world
- Economic sovereignty
🔴 Palestinian Prisoner Releases:
- Thousands held in Israeli prisons
- Non-negotiable prerequisite
- Emotional/political imperative
🔴 Jerusalem Status:
- East Jerusalem as capital
- Al-Aqsa Mosque sovereignty
- No negotiation on holy sites
Why Hamas Won’t Compromise
Ideological Factors:
📜 Charter Fundamentals:
- Doesn’t recognize Israel’s right to exist
- Views all historic Palestine as rightful territory
- Religious obligation to resist
- Compromise = betrayal of cause
Political Calculations:
✓ Survival Through Resistance:
- Hamas’s legitimacy derives from fighting Israel
- Accepting peace plan = political suicide
- Would be replaced by more militant factions
- “Resistance” is brand identity
✓ Lessons from PA:
- Palestinian Authority cooperated, got limited autonomy
- Still no state after 30 years
- Viewed as weak, corrupt
- Hamas won’t repeat “mistakes”
✓ Regional Support:
- Iran provides weapons, funding
- Qatar offers diplomatic support
- Turkey provides political backing
- Has alternatives to U.S./Saudi money
Why Hamas Can Block Any Deal
Military Capability
Despite 2023 Losses, Hamas Retains:
🔫 Estimated Arsenal (2025):
- 5,000-8,000 fighters (down from 15,000 pre-2023)
- Rocket capabilities (limited but existent)
- Tunnel network (partially destroyed but functional)
- Small arms, explosives
- Knowledge, experience, recruitment ability
Deterrence Through Disruption:
- Can’t defeat Israel militarily
- CAN prevent peace through violence
- Sporadic attacks undermine stability
- Makes Gaza “ungovernable” for PA
Political Legitimacy Question
The Electoral Math:
📊 2006 Palestinian Elections (Last Held):
- Hamas won 44% of vote
- PA’s Fatah won 41%
- Hamas took Gaza by force (2007)
Current Polling (October 2025):
- Hamas support: 25-30% in Gaza
- PA support: 20-25% in Gaza
- “Neither” or other: 45-55%
- But: No elections since 2006
The Problem:
- Hamas claims democratic legitimacy
- PA hasn’t held elections (fears losing)
- Any imposed solution lacks consent
- Can’t build peace on illegitimate governance
Governance Vacuum Challenge
What Happens if Hamas Removed?
Scenario Analysis:
⚠️ Power Vacuum Scenarios:
- Palestinian Authority Takes Over:
- PA has no presence in Gaza
- Viewed as collaborators
- Lacks security capability
- Would require Israeli/international force protection
- International Administration:
- No country wants the job
- Arab states refuse occupation role
- UN peacekeeping stretched thin
- Temporary at best
- Chaos/Fragmentation:
- Competing militant factions
- Criminal gangs
- Humanitarian catastrophe
- ISIS-affiliated groups could emerge
Historical Precedent:
Iraq post-2003, Libya post-2011, Afghanistan post-2001—removing existing power structure without legitimate replacement creates instability, not peace.
The Tunnel Network Advantage
Underground Infrastructure:
🕳️ Estimated Tunnel System:
- 300+ miles of tunnels (many destroyed, many remain)
- Depths: 15-60 meters underground
- Connect to Egypt, internal Gaza network
- Storage, command centers, smuggling routes
Strategic Importance:
- Allows Hamas to:
- Hide leadership
- Store weapons
- Smuggle supplies
- Launch surprise attacks
- Survive Israeli operations
Can’t Negotiate What You Can’t Destroy:
Israel has tried for years to eliminate tunnels. They remain. Hamas can use them indefinitely to resist any imposed solution.
Regional Dynamics: Why Others Can’t Force Hamas
Egypt’s Limited Influence
Egypt-Hamas Relationship:
🇪🇬 Egypt’s Position:
- Shares border with Gaza (Rafah crossing)
- Wants stability, fears spillover
- Mediates between Hamas-Israel
- But: Limited leverage over Hamas
Why Egypt Can’t Compel Hamas:
- Hamas doesn’t depend on Egypt for survival
- Egypt closes Rafah when convenient
- Muslim Brotherhood connection (Egypt’s regime hostile)
- Egypt won’t invade/occupy Gaza
Qatar’s Checkbook Diplomacy
Qatar-Hamas Ties:
🇶🇦 Financial Support:
- $30+ million monthly to Gaza
- Hosts Hamas political leadership
- Mediator in negotiations
- But: Influence has limits
The Leverage Problem:
- Qatar gives money but can’t dictate policy
- Hamas would rather suffer than surrender
- Other funders available (Iran)
- Qatar won’t cut off humanitarian aid (looks bad internationally)
Iran’s Strategic Interest
Iran-Hamas Alliance:
🇮🇷 What Iran Provides:
- Weapons technology
- Training
- Funding (estimated $100M+ annually)
- Political support
Iran’s Calculation:
- Hamas is pressure point against Israel
- Part of “resistance axis” (Iran, Hezbollah, Syria, Houthis)
- Won’t abandon strategic asset
- Can replace losses indefinitely
Why This Matters:
As long as Iran supports Hamas, economic incentives from Gulf states are neutralized. Hamas has alternative patron.
Palestinian Authority’s Weakness
PA Governance Crisis:
📉 Mahmoud Abbas (89 years old):
- President since 2005
- No elections since
- Legitimacy questioned
- Unpopular in Gaza
PA’s Gaza Problem:
- Hasn’t governed Gaza since 2007
- No security forces there
- Viewed as Israeli collaborators
- Can’t impose control without massive force
Catch-22:
Trump plan requires PA to govern Gaza. PA can’t govern Gaza without defeating Hamas. PA can’t defeat Hamas. Therefore, plan can’t work.
What Could Actually Happen
Scenario 1: Status Quo Continues (50% Probability)
Most Likely Outcome:
- Hamas rejects plan
- Sporadic violence continues
- Blockade remains
- Reconstruction limited
- Political stalemate indefinite
Why Most Likely:
- All parties somewhat satisfied with current arrangement
- Cost of change exceeds benefit
- No forcing mechanism
- Alternative to bad peace
Scenario 2: Limited Implementation (30% Probability)
Partial Progress:
- Some economic development projects
- Humanitarian aid increased
- Hamas maintains control but moderates rhetoric
- Informal understandings replace formal agreement
Requirements:
- Hamas tacitly accepts without endorsing
- Israel allows economic development without requiring full disarmament
- International community works around Hamas
- Low expectations, modest goals
Scenario 3: Major Conflict Resets Board (15% Probability)
Escalation Path:
- Hamas rejects plan, increases attacks
- Israel responds with major operation
- Regional war risk
- Humanitarian crisis
- New reality emerges from conflict
Why Possible:
- Trump plan rejection could justify Israeli action
- Netanyahu government has incentive to act
- Hamas may calculate confrontation beneficial
- Regional tensions high
Scenario 4: Hamas Accepts Modified Plan (5% Probability)
Least Likely:
- Significant concessions to Hamas
- Power-sharing arrangement
- Gradual demilitarization
- Hamas rebrands as political party
Why Unlikely:
- Requires Hamas ideological shift
- Israel won’t negotiate with Hamas directly
- U.S. won’t legitimize designated terrorist group
- Regional states won’t pressure Hamas sufficiently
Expert Analysis
Why Plans Keep Failing
💬 Dennis Ross, Former U.S. Middle East Envoy:
“Every peace plan assumes rational actors pursuing self-interest. Hamas’s self-interest is resistance, not prosperity. Until you solve that equation, no amount of money changes the calculation.”
💬 Ghaith al-Omari, Former PA Official:
“The fundamental problem is Hamas and the PA are in competition for Palestinian legitimacy. Any plan that empowers one threatens the other. They won’t cooperate to implement something that benefits both.”
💬 Michael Singh, Washington Institute:
“Trump’s plan, like others before it, offers ‘peace for peace’—economic benefits in exchange for ending conflict. But Hamas isn’t motivated by economics. They’re motivated by ideology and political survival, neither of which this addresses.”
What Would Actually Change Hamas’s Mind
Theoretical Pathways:
- Military Defeat So Severe They Can’t Recover
- Hasn’t happened yet despite massive Israeli operations
- Would require Gaza occupation
- Israel unwilling to pay that price
- Internal Palestinian Uprising Against Hamas
- Gaza population turns against Hamas
- Demands governance change
- Hasn’t materialized despite hardship
- Iran Abandons Hamas
- Would eliminate key supporter
- Not happening—strategic asset for Iran
- Alternative patrons available
- Generational Leadership Change
- Current leaders replaced by pragmatists
- Possible over decades
- Not near-term solution
Bottom Line: No realistic pathway to Hamas acceptance exists under current conditions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why doesn’t Israel just eliminate Hamas militarily?
Israel has tried repeatedly. Hamas uses civilian infrastructure, hides underground, and recruits new members faster than Israel can eliminate them. Full elimination would require Gaza occupation, which Israel considers too costly in lives and international standing.
Can the Palestinian Authority govern Gaza without Hamas approval?
No. PA has no security forces in Gaza, no popular legitimacy there, and would be seen as Israeli proxy. Would require international force protection, and no country wants that mission.
Why does Iran support Hamas if they’re Sunni and Iran is Shia?
Geopolitics trumps theology. Hamas is useful pressure point against Israel and helps Iran’s regional strategy. The relationship is pragmatic, not religious.
Could Trump actually implement this plan if elected?
Announcing a plan is different from implementing it. Without Palestinian buy-in (both Hamas and PA), and with Hamas able to disrupt through violence, implementation is nearly impossible regardless of who’s president.
What about regular Gazans—don’t they want the economic development?
Polls show Gazans want both: better economy AND resistance to Israel. They don’t see these as contradictory. Many blame Israel’s blockade, not Hamas, for economic suffering.
Could Arab states force Hamas to accept?
They lack leverage. Egypt can close Rafah crossing, but that hurts civilians more than Hamas. Qatar could cut funding, but Iran replaces it. Saudi/UAE money only matters if Hamas wants it—they don’t.
Conclusion
Donald Trump’s Gaza peace plan—like numerous proposals before it—founders on a fundamental reality: Hamas has more to lose from accepting peace than from rejecting it.
The Plan’s Fatal Flaws:
✗ Requires Hamas disarmament (they refuse)
✗ Assumes economic incentives override ideology (they don’t)
✗ Depends on PA governance Hamas opposes
✗ Lacks enforcement mechanism
✗ Doesn’t address Hamas’s core grievances
Why Hamas Is the Obstacle:
Unlike other stakeholders who might accept suboptimal deals:
- Hamas’s existence depends on resistance
- Acceptance would delegitimize their raison d’être
- They have viable alternative (Iran support)
- Can survive without U.S./Saudi money
- Military capability allows spoiler role
The Broader Truth:
Peace plans that ignore or sideline major parties to conflicts don’t succeed. Hamas controls Gaza, has significant support, retains military capability, and possesses ideological commitment to resistance. No plan that treats Hamas as problem to be solved rather than party to negotiate with can work.
This doesn’t make Hamas right, justified, or legitimate. It makes them consequential. And in Middle East peacemaking, consequential parties can’t be wished away with development funds and diplomatic frameworks.
Until someone solves the “Hamas problem”—either by defeating them militarily (tried, failed), buying them off (ideology prevents), or addressing their core concerns (politically impossible)—plans like Trump’s will join the long list of well-intentioned failures in the Middle East peace process archive.
The question isn’t whether Hamas will accept Trump’s plan. They won’t. The question is whether regional actors will continue pursuing plans Hamas can veto, or accept that peace requires dealing with realities, not preferences.