In a dramatic escalation of rhetoric, U.S. President Donald Trump has issued a stern ultimatum to Hamas, the Palestinian militant group, demanding that they accept a U.S.-brokered peace agreement to end the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The warning, delivered with characteristic intensity, comes with a deadline of 6:00 p.m. on Sunday, Washington, D.C. time, and carries the ominous threat that failure to comply will unleash unprecedented consequences for the group. Trump’s announcement, made via his social media platform Truth Social and reinforced through official White House channels, underscores his administration’s determination to resolve the Gaza conflict, which has been marked by significant violence and loss of life.
The proposed peace deal, hammered out during a high-level meeting at the White House earlier this week, represents a bold attempt to bring an end to the protracted conflict that has ravaged Gaza and strained relations in the Middle East for decades. The agreement, which includes a 20-point plan, outlines a series of ambitious steps aimed at achieving lasting peace in the region. Central to the proposal is the immediate release of all remaining hostages held by Hamas, including the bodies of deceased Israeli captives, within 72 hours of an agreement being reached. Additionally, the plan calls for the complete disarmament of Hamas, a gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, and a controversial provision for post-war governance of the territory under Trump’s direct oversight.
In his Truth Social post on Friday, Trump minced no words in describing the stakes. He characterized Hamas as a “ruthless and violent threat” that has caused immense suffering in the Middle East, particularly highlighting the group’s role in the October 7th attack, which he described as a “massacre” targeting Israeli civilians, including women, children, and the elderly. The attack, which marked a significant escalation in the conflict, has been a focal point of Trump’s rhetoric, with the president emphasizing the need for retribution. He claimed that over 25,000 Hamas fighters have already been killed and that the remaining members are “militarily trapped,” awaiting his command to face annihilation. The stark language underscores Trump’s willingness to use overwhelming force if his demands are not met.
However, the president also extended an olive branch, albeit a conditional one. He urged innocent Palestinian civilians to evacuate the conflict zones in Gaza for their safety, assuring them that they would be “well cared for” by those ready to provide assistance. Trump framed the peace deal as a “last chance” for Hamas to avoid catastrophic consequences, emphasizing that the agreement would spare the lives of remaining fighters if accepted. The proposal, he claimed, has garnered the support of “great, powerful, and very rich nations” in the Middle East, as well as Israel, marking what he described as a historic opportunity for peace after “3,000 years” of conflict in the region.
The White House meeting on Monday, which included Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and key U.S. cabinet officials, was a pivotal moment in the development of the peace plan. The 20-point proposal released by the administration outlines a multifaceted approach to resolving the crisis. In addition to the release of hostages and the disarmament of Hamas, the plan includes significant economic incentives for Gaza, such as increased humanitarian aid, preferred tariffs, and enhanced access to international markets. These measures are intended to foster economic development and stability in the region, which has been devastated by years of conflict and blockade. The inclusion of a governance model led by Trump himself has raised eyebrows, with critics questioning the feasibility and implications of such an arrangement.
Trump’s rhetoric on Truth Social was characteristically grandiose, framing the peace deal as a transformative moment for the Middle East. “We will have PEACE in the Middle East one way or the other,” he declared, emphasizing that the violence and bloodshed must come to an end. The president’s insistence on the immediate release of hostages, including the remains of those who have died, reflects the emotional weight of the issue for both the U.S. and Israel. By setting a firm deadline, Trump has sought to exert maximum pressure on Hamas to comply, while simultaneously signaling to his domestic and international audiences his commitment to decisive action.
The response from Hamas, however, has been cautious. A senior official from the group, speaking to Agence France-Presse (AFP) on Friday, indicated that Hamas requires additional time to review the details of Trump’s proposal. The official noted that the organization is engaged in ongoing consultations with mediators and has communicated the need for further deliberation. This request for more time suggests that Hamas is grappling with the complex and far-reaching implications of the plan, particularly the demand for complete disarmament and the unprecedented proposal for Trump to oversee Gaza’s governance. The group’s hesitation may also reflect internal divisions or strategic calculations about the feasibility of continuing the conflict in the face of overwhelming military pressure.
The proposed disarmament of Hamas is a particularly contentious element of the plan. For years, the group has maintained its military capabilities as a core component of its resistance against Israeli occupation. Agreeing to disarm would represent a significant concession, potentially undermining Hamas’s influence and legitimacy among its supporters. The gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces, while a key demand of Palestinian groups, is contingent on Hamas meeting the terms of the agreement, creating a delicate balance of trust and verification that will be difficult to achieve.
The governance provision, which places Trump at the helm of post-war Gaza, has sparked intense debate. Supporters argue that Trump’s direct involvement could ensure accountability and prevent the resurgence of militant activity, leveraging his reputation for decisive leadership. Critics, however, view the proposal as impractical and potentially destabilizing, questioning how a U.S. president could effectively govern a territory thousands of miles away with a complex history of conflict and competing factions. The lack of clarity on the specifics of this arrangement has fueled skepticism about its implementation.
The broader geopolitical context adds further complexity to the situation. The involvement of other Middle Eastern nations, as alluded to by Trump, suggests a coordinated effort to address the Gaza crisis within the framework of regional alliances. The Abraham Accords, brokered during Trump’s first term, normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, and this peace deal may build on those relationships to create a coalition of support. However, the absence of explicit mention of key regional players, such as Egypt or Qatar, which have historically mediated between Israel and Hamas, raises questions about the extent of international buy-in.
For Palestinians in Gaza, the immediate concern is safety. Trump’s call for civilians to evacuate conflict zones reflects the administration’s recognition of the humanitarian toll of the war. The conflict has displaced thousands, destroyed infrastructure, and exacerbated poverty and food insecurity. The promise of increased aid and economic development is a critical component of the peace plan, but its success will depend on effective implementation and the cooperation of all parties involved.
As the Sunday deadline approaches, the world watches closely to see whether Hamas will accept the terms of the agreement or risk the catastrophic consequences threatened by Trump. The stakes could not be higher, with the potential for either a historic breakthrough in Middle East peace or a devastating escalation of violence. For Trump, the ultimatum is a high-stakes gamble that reflects his broader approach to foreign policy: bold, confrontational, and uncompromising. Whether this strategy will yield the desired outcome remains uncertain, but it underscores the president’s determination to leave a lasting mark on one of the world’s most intractable conflicts.
In the coming days, mediators, regional leaders, and global observers will be focused on Hamas’s response and the actions of the U.S. and Israel. The outcome of this ultimatum could reshape the Middle East, either paving the way for a new era of stability or plunging the region into further chaos. For now, the clock is ticking, and the world waits to see whether peace or “all hell” will prevail.
