(MENAFN- Daily News Egypt) Just days before the war enters its third year, and mere hours before the deadline set by US President Donald Trump, Hamas announced its approval of Trump's proposed peace plan, particularly the clause concerning the release of all hostages, both alive and dead.

Although Hamas offered what it described as a“conditional approval,” especially on key issues related to the movement's future and its weapons, Trump, the businessman president, chose to seize on what mattered most to him: the symbolic breakthrough of the“hostage release.”

Inside Israel, the far-right camp is facing an existential crisis. Feeling betrayed by Trump's response, it views his positive tone as a political ambush-an attempt to end the war before completing its“sacred mission” of eliminating Hamas, reoccupying Gaza, and displacing what remains of its population. Under increasing pressure from his right-wing coalition, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may resort to one last card: calling for early elections, thus resetting the game to square one.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid was the first to respond to Trump's announcement, seeking to block the far right's escalation. He wrote on X:“President Trump is right-there is an unprecedented opportunity here to release the hostages and end the war.”

Lapid added that Israel must declare its participation in the US-led negotiations to finalize the details of the agreement, emphasizing that he had assured Washington of his political support for Netanyahu to proceed with the process. His statement effectively served as a political safety net for the prime minister.

Netanyahu, however, is now trapped in his worst nightmare. He can no longer afford to stray from Trump, the man who only days ago hailed him at the White House as“Israel's greatest friend in history.” Still reeling from Trump's positive response to Hamas, Netanyahu reportedly saw the statement as a“yes disguised as a no.” Trump, perhaps aware of the shock he had caused, went a step further-publicly ordering an“immediate ceasefire” to allow Hamas to retrieve the hostages from Gaza's tunnels.

This development marks an unprecedented moment: for the first time since October 7, 2023, the United States has openly opposed Israel's insistence on“negotiating under fire.” In effect, Washington has now placed a restraint on Israel's war machine, and the ball is squarely in Tel Aviv's court.

Dr. Hatem Sadek

More significantly, Trump's response shifts the burden of implementing his plan onto Israel itself, which must now create conditions enabling Hamas to locate and return the hostages. In a striking move, Trump even described Hamas, an organization officially designated as a“terrorist” group by the US, as a group“seeking peace.” In doing so, he overturned years of strategic alignment with Netanyahu and pre-empted traditional US-Israeli policy assumptions with his own vision of the conflict.

For the families of the hostages, however, a painful question remains: this proposal is not new-it had been discussed before. Why, then, did the Israeli government continue to raise the banner of war, rather than prepare the public for an inevitable compromise-after two-thirds of the hostages had already perished?

In essence, Trump's plan adopts a novel framework that aims to reconcile humanitarian and security concerns within a single, integrated approach. For example, the plan stipulates that humanitarian aid will resume immediately at a rate matching the daily number of trucks that entered Gaza during the January 2025 ceasefire. It also emphasizes the rebuilding of essential infrastructure-water treatment plants, hospitals, and community kitchens-and clearly states that“no one will be forced to leave Gaza; those who wish to depart may do so freely and may return.”

Still, Trump's framework carries warning signs. It attempts to tackle too many challenges at once-post-war governance, reconstruction, economic revival, and humanitarian relief. Meaningful discussions on reconstruction and economic recovery can only take place once the situation stabilizes on the ground, Hamas is disarmed, and civilians' basic needs are met.

The coming days, therefore, will be decisive. The greatest burden now falls on the negotiators, who must first secure a ceasefire in Gaza, coordinate Israel's withdrawal, establish an interim governing body, and address the urgent humanitarian crisis. Only once these immediate priorities are achieved can policymakers build upon that progress to draft longer-term agreements on reconstruction and development. After all, Gaza cannot be rebuilt while its people are dying of hunger and relentless bombardment.

If the Trump administration is serious about taking the lead in Gaza's post-war reconstruction, it must be ready to commit years of diplomatic investment. It must also engage in difficult conversations with Israelis, Palestinians, Arab partners, and European allies alike to ensure lasting compliance with whatever agreement emerges.

While the governing authorities in Gaza-including the Palestinian Authority-will undoubtedly require international assistance to recover, Washington must ensure that such support is not perceived as exploitative. Coordination with Egypt, Jordan, and regional partners will be crucial to maintain US credibility as a neutral and trustworthy mediator in future talks on trade, border security, and Palestinian statehood.

No“post-war” plan for Gaza will ever be perfect. Any agreement that ends the conflict will inevitably frustrate Israelis, Palestinians, and their Western partners to varying degrees. Negotiating with Hamas as a legitimate actor carries obvious risks, yet ignoring post-war governance would be the gravest mistake of all. Despite its flaws, Trump's plan could offer a workable foundation for ending the conflict-provided that it respects both human rights and security needs on all sides.

To maximize success, the White House should divide its ambitions into two tracks: one focused on ending the war, releasing hostages, and stabilizing Gaza; and another on long-term reconstruction. Thinking ahead-planning for“the day after”-is now more critical than ever for the region's lasting security.

Ultimately, the man in the White House has proven that while politics can serve as a Trojan horse, economics and the language of business may yet become the Achilles' heel capable of overcoming political paralysis. And if Trump's ambition truly includes winning the Nobel Peace Prize, his plan could mark a significant leap toward ending the Gaza war and restoring regional stability under the legacy of the Abraham Accords. One way or another, the Middle East stands on the threshold of a new political, security, and economic landscape.

Dr. Hatem Sadek – Professor at Helwan University

MENAFN07102025000153011029ID1110163184