The Impossible Choice: As Trump’s Ultimatum Looms, Gaza Trapped Between War and a “Disaster” of a Peace 

Facing a U.S. ultimatum from President Trump, Hamas is trapped in an impossible dilemma over a ceasefire plan that demands its disarmament and removal from power while offering no clear path to a Palestinian state or a timely Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, a proposal seen as a “disaster” whether accepted or rejected; as the group deliberates, Israel is intensifying its military offensive in Gaza City, tightening its encirclement, issuing final evacuation orders, and deepening a humanitarian catastrophe where starvation claims more lives, thereby pressuring Hamas with the grim choice between capitulation and the continued devastation of its people.

The Impossible Choice: As Trump’s Ultimatum Looms, Gaza Trapped Between War and a “Disaster” of a Peace 

The air over Gaza City is thick with more than just dust and smoke from the latest Israeli bombardment; it is heavy with an impossible decision. In the sealed corridors of power where Hamas leaders are deliberating, and in the shattered streets where Palestinians are simply trying to survive, a single question hangs: What do you do when every path forward leads to ruin? 

This is the stark reality framed by U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent ultimatum. As Hamas enters a third day of reviewing a ceasefire plan largely seen as an Israeli proposal “articulated by Trump,” the militant group is caught in a geopolitical vise. To accept is to legitimize a plan that surrenders its core tenets; to reject is to invite a continuation of a war that has decimated its people. Meanwhile, on the ground, Israel is intensifying its military campaign, signaling that the diplomatic window is closing fast, and the human cost is climbing by the hour. 

The Trump-Netanyahu Plan: A Blueprint for Surrender? 

The details of the plan, as outlined by Trump alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, present what many analysts are calling a diktat rather than a negotiation. Its core demands are unambiguous: 

• The release of all remaining Israeli hostages. 

• The complete disarmament of Hamas. 

• The permanent removal of Hamas from any governing role in Gaza. 

In return, the plan suggests a eventual Israeli withdrawal from the territory, but crucially, it provides no specific timeline, no clear path to a sovereign Palestinian state, and offers few immediate concessions that address Hamas’s long-stated demands for a permanent end to the war and a full Israeli withdrawal. 

A Palestinian official familiar with the talks summarized the agonizing position to Reuters: “Accepting the plan is a disaster, rejecting it is another. There are only bitter choices here, but the plan is a Netanyahu plan articulated by Trump.” 

This sentiment is echoed by Hamas’s allied militant factions, who have already publicly rejected the proposal, arguing it would “destroy the Palestinian cause” and grant Israel’s control international legitimacy. For Hamas, an organization founded on resistance to Israeli occupation, agreeing to disarm and relinquish power is tantamount to organizational suicide. It would mean not just a military defeat, but a profound ideological capitulation. 

The Military Noose Tightens: “The Last Opportunity” to Flee 

While diplomats talk, the Israeli military is acting. The situation in Gaza City has deteriorated dramatically, with the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) issuing new, stringent evacuation orders and intensifying its bombardment of the enclave’s north. 

Defence Minister Israel Katz framed this not as a temporary tactic, but as a strategic finale: “tightening the encirclement around Gaza on the way to defeating Hamas.” His language was stark, describing the latest evacuation window as the “last opportunity” for civilians to move south, after which they would be barred from returning north. 

This move is significant. By permanently severing the connection between north and south Gaza—specifically by closing the coastal road to northbound traffic—Israel is effectively preparing for a prolonged, high-intensity operation in Gaza City aimed at rooting out the remaining Hamas battalions. For the hundreds of thousands who fled south earlier in the war, this dashes any hope of a swift return to their homes, deepening the widespread fear that this displacement is not temporary but permanent. 

Witnesses report Israeli tanks advancing, and a night of relentless airstrikes has left dozens dead, including victims in a strike on a historic neighborhood and another on a school-turned-shelter. This creates a brutal, two-pronged pressure on Hamas: the diplomatic pressure from Trump’s ultimatum and the existential military pressure from an advancing army. 

The Human Catastrophe: Where Famine is a Weapon and Aid is a Battleground 

Beneath the high-stakes political and military maneuvering lies a human catastrophe that continues to worsen. The Gaza Health Ministry’s report that two more Palestinians, including a child, have died from malnutrition in the past 24 hours is a grim statistic with a searing human story. It brings the total deaths from starvation since the war began to at least 455, a third of them children. 

This is not an accidental byproduct of war; it is a direct consequence of it. An August report by the IPC, the global hunger monitor, confirmed that Gaza City and its environs are suffering from a full-blown famine, a condition expected to spread to over half a million people. While Israel eased a near-total blockade on food in July, the United Nations insists the aid is still woefully insufficient and, critically, often undeliverable. 

The breakdown is twofold: Israeli military restrictions on movement make distribution a logistical nightmare, while a collapse of civil order—a predictable outcome in a starving, lawless society—makes aid convoys vulnerable to looting. Israel and Hamas trade blame over who is responsible, with Israel accusing Hamas of stealing aid, a charge the group denies. The result is a deadly impasse where food sits in warehouses while children die just miles away. This humanitarian reality forms the desperate backdrop against which Hamas must calculate its next move. Can it continue a war when its people are starving? 

The Geopolitical Chessboard: Trump the Deal-Maker or Netanyahu’s Megaphone? 

President Trump’s re-entry into the Middle East fray is a masterclass in his signature approach to diplomacy: high-stakes public ultimatums, a strong alignment with the Israeli right, and a presentation that frames him as the ultimate deal-maker. However, a closer look reveals a plan that heavily favors his partner, Netanyahu. 

By giving Hamas a public “three or four days” to respond, Trump creates a media narrative of a ticking clock, putting the onus of escalation squarely on the militant group if they refuse. Furthermore, the plan’s elements are not new; they are recycled from previous U.S.-backed proposals that have failed. The key difference is the messenger and the timing. With Israel militarily ascendant and Gaza in ruins, Trump and Netanyahu are presenting the plan from a position of overwhelming strength. 

For many world leaders, weary of a conflict that destabilizes the region, the plan offers a potential off-ramp, and many have offered public support. Yet, for the Arab and Muslim world, which has consistently demanded a clear path to a Palestinian state as the non-negotiable cornerstone of any peace, the plan falls devastatingly short. It treats the symptom—the immediate war in Gaza—while ignoring the underlying disease: the decades-long conflict over land, sovereignty, and dignity. 

An Unenviable Crossroads 

As Hamas deliberates, it faces a choice from a position of profound weakness. Accepting the Trump plan would mean surviving as a political entity, albeit a neutered one, and potentially ending the immediate bloodshed. Yet, it would be seen by many of its supporters and other Palestinian factions as a historic betrayal of the cause of liberation. 

Rejecting it, however, guarantees a brutal, final Israeli assault on Gaza City, with untold thousands more civilian casualties and the continued slow death of Gaza by starvation and disease. The group’s statement that it is “keen to end the war and end the genocide” but will act in the “higher interests of the Palestinian people” underscores this painful dichotomy. What, in this hellscape, constitutes the “higher interest”? 

The people of Gaza are trapped not just by blockades and bombardment, but by an impossible geopolitical calculus. The path to peace, it seems, is being paved with the bricks of surrender and the threat of annihilation, offering no justice, no dignity, and no clear future—only the promise of an end to the bombs, at a price that may be too bitter for any to pay.