![\"\"](\"https:\/\/natharatmouchrika.net\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/86c91a8c3ed4e5423dddda3be40e6005-169x300.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This week, as Palestinian negotiators led by Hamas gathered in Doha, Qatar, to craft their response to President Donald Trump\u2019s 20-point plan for a Gaza ceasefire, they knew they were at a decisive crossroads. Trump had portrayed his plan, unveiled on Monday at the White House, as an ultimatum and both he and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that if Hamas rejected the deal, then Israel would ratchet up its war of annihilation.<\/p>\n
On the one hand, Trump\u2019s proposal contained a series of terms for ending the war that align closely with a framework Hamas had agreed to just weeks earlier: an exchange of captives, a ceasefire, the resumption of deliveries of life essentials and humanitarian aid to Gaza, and the withdrawal of Israeli forces. While the terms laid out in Trump\u2019s plan were vague, the basic structure to end the Gaza war was there.<\/p>\n
On the other, the plan contained sweeping proposals that, if implemented, would have grave implications, not just for Gaza, but for the future of a unified Palestinian state. It included plans for the deployment of foreign troops and the establishment of an international board, headed by Trump and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, to effectively dictate Gaza\u2019s affairs. It also would leave open the likelihood of a long-term Israeli military presence inside Gaza and the total disarmament of Palestinians, erasing their right to resist Israeli occupation. Trump\u2019s overarching message was that Palestinians must surrender their fight for liberation and submit to subjugation.<\/p>\n
There was broad consensus among a wide range of Palestinian factions and parties that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad had the authority to negotiate an end to the active war in Gaza, according to several sources who participated in the discussions. There was also agreement that Hamas alone did not have a mandate to negotiate terms that would impact what the negotiators called issues related to the Palestinian homeland.<\/p>\n
\u201cRegarding the resistance factions, our jurisdiction is concerning matters of prisoner exchanges in return for halting the aggression, withdrawal, the entry of aid, and stopping the policy of displacement against our people,\u201d said Mohammed Al-Hindi, the chief political negotiator for Palestinian Islamic Jihad, in an interview with Drop Site. \u201cAs for the national issues, the resistance factions are not authorized to speak on them alone, as these concern all factions and forces of the Palestinian people everywhere.\u201d<\/p>\n
The challenge before the negotiators was how to craft a response to Trump that would assert the Palestinian right to self-determination while persuading the erratic U.S. president to force Israel to cease its genocidal war.<\/p>\n
The dominant pattern in previous ceasefire talks had been that Hamas\u2019s proposals to amend Israeli-U.S. terms sparked false allegations that Hamas had rejected a deal, paving the way for more genocidal attacks. The Palestinian negotiators knew that proposing amendments or giving the impression they were rejecting any of Trump\u2019s terms risked a return to that familiar and murderous cycle. But this time, there was a new constellation of interests.<\/p>\n