In the Context of International Transformations.. Does Trump Really Want to Stop the Genocide?

Author: جمال زقوت

In an interview with The Daily Caller a few days ago, President Donald Trump stated that "Israel may win the war militarily, but it will not win in the public relations field, and this harms it," adding, "There was a time when you could not criticize Israel if you wanted to be political, but the situation has now completely changed." He pointed to the diminishing influence of the Israeli lobby within Congress, and that voices such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others have "changed the equation" in American political discourse.

It is clear that Trump’s reference to the possibility of Israel gaining a military advantage while losing international support reflects his awareness that the continuation of the war "undoubtedly harms it." These statements express tangible transformations in both the international and American scenes, where support for Israel is no longer absolute or insulated as it once was. Despite Trump's full bias and close partnership with the Tel Aviv government, he acknowledged that the Israeli lobby has lost much of its influence in Congress compared to decades ago. This highlights a profound change in the American political environment, where it is no longer possible to ignore the shift in the tone of support within the Republican Party itself, alongside the rise of progressive figures in the Democratic Party and advanced voices within the Republicans, which has given politicians greater space to criticize Israel without fear of political repercussions or loss of public support.

Trump’s statements also carry an implicit call to end the war. His assertion that Israel "will have to end this war" reflects an indirect pressure to respond to international transformations, even if they have not yet reached a decisive degree. This stems from a conviction that Israel’s image and international standing are rapidly declining, and it is in urgent need of repair, from his perspective.

Netanyahu is aware of these transformations and is spending huge amounts to address them, including the agreement with Google, which he announced through multiple media outlets, aimed at repairing Israel’s image. However, at the same time, he insists that the decline in its status will not deter him from continuing his war to achieve the central goal of resolving the Palestinian issue by displacing Gazans as a first step, followed by accelerated steps to annex lands and confine the Palestinian people in the West Bank into isolated cantons, not exceeding what can be described as "city links."

Manoeuvre or Beginning of a Deal?

According to multiple reports up until the evening of Sunday, September 8, 2025, the proposal announced by Trump via the Truth Social platform, which he described as the "last warning" to Hamas, confirming that Israel accepted its terms, and calling on the movement to accept it or face the consequences. According to N12 Israel, the offer includes the release of 48 hostages on the first day of the ceasefire, in exchange for the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails, followed by entering negotiations to end the war during the truce period. Trump expressed optimism to journalists about the possibility of reaching a "deal very soon" that guarantees the return of all hostages, whether alive or deceased. In return, Hamas responded that it had received ideas from the American side through intermediaries and expressed readiness to develop these proposals, but emphasized two main demands: a clear declaration to stop the war and a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.

However, this proposal, which was not issued in an official statement from the White House but rather in the form of a tweet, raises fears among Palestinian factions that it might be merely an attempt to improve Israel’s image, which did not respond to the Egyptian-Qatari proposal, made in coordination with Trump’s intermediaries in Washington. This has deepened the crisis regarding Israel’s status among the United States’ allies on both international and possibly Arab levels as well.

Yes, there are serious elements in the direction. The intermediaries are active, Israel is taking it seriously, and Hamas is open to dialogue. But the media nature accompanying the ambiguity of the details casts shadows of doubt regarding the conclusion that the matter is final or fully prepared. Nevertheless, regardless of the possibility that it is merely a manoeuvre that lacks sufficient seriousness, Hamas and other factions must not slip into rejecting it; they must engage with it as seriously and cautiously as possible, to push it with the support of all to become genuinely serious, leading to a halt to the genocide. This is the supreme goal we agree upon, and international support for achieving it is increasing.

As long as Trump wants to recover all the Israeli captives at once, the Palestinian demand for a clear declaration from Washington to stop the war constitutes the minimum. All Palestinians, along with Arab and Islamic countries, must support it and push Washington’s allies regionally and internationally to exert the necessary pressures to achieve this. Perhaps we need to realize that the continued retention of the captives does not provide a guarantee, as much as it turns into a "shirt of Othman"; thus, calling for a clear American position to stop the war, and perhaps even a resolution from the Security Council, remains the minimum standard to judge the seriousness of this proposal, which requires serious coordination with all parties and regional and international groups by the brothers in Egypt and Qatar.

What Comes After the Genocide: The Biggest Challenge

Another highly important issue requiring caution is for the resistance to conclude from this movement that it represents a victory for it and acts internally based on that, or for its opponents to view it as a defeat for it, and a direct or indirect submission to Netanyahu's conditions, just to show their position that they were right from the beginning, and that Hamas is responsible for what has happened. Both conclusions stem from the root of the destructive division and internal conflict. The seriousness of this movement essentially arises from the nature of the international transformations imposed by the immense sacrifices of our people and the horrific genocidal crimes that the Tel Aviv government continues to commit, making the world no longer able to remain silent or complicit in them.

Internally, should the material genocide of the people of Gaza and their community stop, and the political genocide of the Palestinian cause, the national priority lies in recognizing that mending the national ship is impossible without a collective effort in which everyone participates as much as they can. This has always been required, but now it is more urgent than ever, free from manoeuvres, exclusions, and narrow calculations. The absolute priority is to arrange the internal house and instill hope in people’s hearts, not through hollow speeches, but by building inclusive political and governmental institutions and formulating executable national plans, firstly by the efforts, will, and hands of the Palestinians. Hope for the Palestinians is the most important weapon in facing the multiple risks of displacement schemes. The real war will begin after military operations cease, when the battle to reap its political benefits commences, and here lies the greatest challenge: what are we going to do?