One of the funnier moments of President Donald Trump’s speech in Cairo was when he appeared to ask British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to come up to the microphone, only to snub him. “Where is the United Kingdom?” asked Trump, as the leaders of the participating nations stood behind him on stage. As Starmer approached the microphone to speak, Trump quickly turned and said “Has everything gone good…it’s very nice that you’re here,” then continued his speech, leaving Sir Keir awkwardly standing there.
The insult was richly deserved. The leaders of nations who would gladly disarm Israel, accuse it of genocide, knowing those accusations were false, and pander to the “Free Palestine!” crowd for their own political advantage, show up to bask in the glow of a peace plan based on the only workable outcome: Israel getting what it needs, and Hamas being properly disciplined.
The only way Hamas was arm-twisted into approving the first phase of the 20 point plan was to bifurcate the talks into the cease-fire and hostage release, in return for over a thousand terrorists and murderers held in Israeli prisons, from the rest of the items in the plan. Hamas has now rejected the remaining items in the plan.
Spokesman Hazem Qassem told Al-Arabiya on Monday, “We do not need to limit ourselves to the Israeli terms and definitions related to weapons. We will not be captives to Israeli terms or demands. This is one of the focal points of the struggle in the next stage, after the cessation of aggression in the Gaza Strip.”
Trump’s plan called for Hamas to disarm, which, according to Akram Atallah, a Palestinian writer who now lives in London, is effectively to “dismantle its ideology.” Hamas exists as a force to fight with weapons. That is its entire ideology. To disarm it is to annihilate it. But that’s the point, isn’t it?
At this point, there are two paths: the talks bog down into tit-for-tat, with some remains of Israeli hostages returned in exchange for greater freedom, access to international aid, and opening of border crossings by Israel; or Hamas being forced to disarm, the only way such things are forced.
The first path leads to an ossification of the status quo, with Israel occupying a large chunk of Gaza (more than 50 percent right now), and offering territory for concessions from Hamas, which will continue to rule in Gaza, and continue to be armed. This path will not solve any long-term problems, as eventually Hamas (sooner rather than later) will build tunnels, assemble rockets, plan incursions, and try to use international pressure, smuggling, and its financial resources to resume its raison d’être, attacking Israel.
The second path is for someone to go in, militarily, and force Hamas to disarm. Hamas has moved very quickly to eliminate any possible sources of insurgency, publicly executing members of clans it considers a threat. It justifies these actions by deeming the members of these clans as “traitors” or collaborators with Israel. Of course, that’s hot garbage and propaganda, but there have been armed clashes with groups that would rather have peace with Israel than continual war and death, which is Hamas’ preference. If peace is collaboration, then there is really no peace for Hamas.
Israel is still in celebration mode, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned Hamas, in an interview with CBS News, if it doesn’t agree to disarm, “all hell” will break loose. Trump issued his own warning: “Well, they’re going to disarm, and because they said they were going to disarm. And if they don’t disarm, we will disarm them.”
Hamas never said it would disarm. Going back to the cease-fire agreement talks, it was a non-starter and would have sunk the agreement to get the hostages back if that point was insisted upon. Nobody thinks that “phase two” of the Trump peace plan will lead anywhere but the first path, because that’s how things have always gone with such agreements. The Oslo Accords never got to the point where a lasting peace could be negotiated, because the Palestinians walked away and started the intifada. Other cease-fire agreements, time after time, have had Hamas operate in bad faith, then blame Israel for the breakdown. Everyone believes this will be no different.
The politicians who stood on the platform with Trump had long called for a cease-fire, as long as Israel did not achieve victory over Hamas. The same activists (mostly on the Democratic Party side) who daily wanted to pressure Israel into a cease-fire are now silent, or focusing their words on getting to the bottom of the “genocide” and “holding Israel accountable,” as if victory in any form is to be denied to the Israelis. To those politicians and activists, it’s just fine to pressure Israel, but not Hamas. Trump managed to pressure both, but make no mistake, it was Israel’s military successes that enabled that pressure, including the so-called “botched” bombing of Doha. Put me on the side of the skeptic on that one.
I am not sure if Israel really intended to barely miss killing the latest crop of Hamas leaders living in luxury in Qatar, or if they missed due to happenstance or poor intelligence or execution. I tend to give more credit to Israeli intelligence and precision, however it’s possible they simply didn’t achieve mission objectives. Then again, the message delivered by the mission was received by those who were meant to receive it. It’s not impossible that the mission objective itself was to deliver the message without killing the recipients. In any case, the fact it happened seemed to crack the shell of invincibility that Hamas’ external leaders enjoyed outside Gaza. That led to a schism between leaders inside Gaza and the outsiders, and ultimately to the hostages being released.
The Arab leaders who helped pressure Hamas are prime candidates to help disarm the group. But I’m not sure even Trump can pull of the kind of arm-twisting and deal-making to get that to happen. It should be Egyptian, Jordanian, or even Saudi troops (or all the above) going in to Gaza and disarming Hamas by force. Unfortunately, the leaders of those nations value their own heads.
As one example, if Jordan fought Hamas, the 3.2 million Palestinians who now live in the Hashemite Kingdom may revolt, and that would mean King Abdullah II would need his military more at home than in Gaza, to save his own neck. If Egypt fought Hamas, then there is the distinct possibility that its own officers would refuse to carry out orders, or actively help Hamas, or that the Rafah crossing would be overwhelmed, with several thousand armed Hamas fighters infiltrating the Sinai. Then Egypt would be obligated under its longstanding treaty with Israel to clear those terrorists out, or suffer a tit-for-tat buildup of military forces with Israel in the desert. Egypt has no desire to breach its treaty, especially after standing on the stage with Trump.
Saudi Arabia’s ruler, King Salman, and his son Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, want to enrich their kingdom, and engage with the west and its money. War with Hamas, like its ten-year war with the Houthis in Yemen, could result in a loss. None of those nations, or the ones led by western politicians who stood with Trump, want to be the ones dropping bombs on Gaza, or sending their troops in to be killed by terrorists, IEDs, booby traps, or to be taken hostage.
And the United States? We fought a nearly 20-year war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and have absolutely nothing to show for it. If Trump sent our troops into Gaza, his own party might well revolt—at least the part who stand with suddenly serious Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene. Many of the MAGA coalition are not keen on Israel or Jews in the first place. Spending American blood and treasure to disarm an enemy of Israel may not be popular among that set, not to mention the activists in the Democratic Party.
The only way Hamas will be disarmed is if someone goes in and disarms them. Israel can certainly do it, and I believe they will if necessary, but not because of some 20 point plan. Israel would rather get a breather, occupy about half of Gaza, and “cut the lawn” when necessary, allowing Hamas to go on with its business, than to have to go back in, full force, as long as they get the bodies of the remaining hostages back. Hamas knows this, and will likely bend to its enemy’s wishes so it can fight another day.
If Trump wants to make “phase two” work, he will have to cobble a coalition together to go in and run Gaza, deposing Hamas. None of the analysts see that working. Nobody sees it working. I don’t see it working. But Trump managed to do something that the Biden administration, and the western nations, and the Israelis themselves, could not do.
Israel cannot disarm Hamas because to do so would completely ruin its chance of rehabilitating its national status among leaders of the civilized world. The “genocide” claims would multiply, and the calls for boycotts and other pressure would increase. The cost is not worth it for Israel. Though it has the capability, it does not have the will to ruin itself in the task. Things may change if Hamas does something heinous enough, but without holding hostages, that seems remote.
It will be a coalition, or nothing. Trump’s threats and words won’t bring that to pass. Perhaps he has more than words up his sleeve, but nobody sees it right now.
So it will be the first path, unless Trump can pull the rabbit out of his hat. He did it once, but twice might be too much to hope for.
SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS: You can follow us on social media at several different locations. Official Racket News pages include:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NewsRacket
Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/NewsRacket
Our personal accounts on the platform formerly known as Twitter:
David: https://x.com/captainkudzu
Steve: https://x.com/stevengberman
Jay: https://x.com/curmudgeon_NH
Tell your friends about us!
I consulted my Trump magic 8 ball on which path, 1 or 2 will happen. The answer was “cannot predict now”. My guess is path 1. No ground swell to enter Gaza with boots on the ground.
Just a reminder that a coalition (and normalization of relations with the coalition members) was on the table back in 2023/early 2024 - but Netanyahu rejected it as it involved having to set up a real Palestinian state.