A Smart and Responsible Response... What are the Proposed Scenarios?

Hamas's response to Trump's plan was smart, responsible, and positive; they welcomed the American efforts and issued a clear "yes," especially regarding the release of all prisoners as part of a swap deal, while keeping the door open for negotiations on details, timelines, and guarantees. They also reaffirmed their rejection of guardianship by demanding a Palestinian local administration within a national consensus, leaving the issue of the stance on the terms related to national rights in the national arena.

The reason for this conditional welcome to a plan that meets most Israeli demands is framed as "yes, but" without total acceptance or rejection; this is because outright rejection would be considered political and military suicide, granting Israel regional and international cover to continue the genocide most ferociously. Conversely, absolute acceptance would mean surrender without guarantees to stop the war, prevent displacement, withdrawal, and reconstruction. However, acceptance coupled with demands for clarifications, details, and negotiations on implementation mechanisms throws the ball back in Netanyahu's court, returning him to a state of isolation after portraying himself as victorious and isolating Hamas, while giving the movement a margin to pursue a cessation of hostilities without bearing the responsibility if it resumes.

Hamas's gamble is that what matters to Trump primarily is achieving a personal accomplishment that satisfies him and enhances his chances of winning a Nobel Peace Prize, which can be achieved through a prisoner swap and cessation of war, while other issues remain secondary to him, which will naturally be resolved on the ground according to the balance of power and regional and international agreements. This war, in all likelihood, will not end with a final agreement but will be added to the list of unresolved wars.

One of the issues that will emerge later is that Hamas's role as a key party in the negotiations will recede once the swap deal is accomplished, amid regional and international stances demanding its removal from power, to which it has initially agreed. However, it will fight to maintain its presence and role, and may be forced to reshape itself by separating the political and military aspects or by creating a new party. But it is certain that Hamas will not disappear; it will remain an important player in a different manner than it was unless the Palestinian national movement, in all its spectra, experiences a change in thought, politics, and performance that presents new national alternatives suitable for the next phase. If the national movement fails in this regard, the occupation and its supporters on one hand, and regional and international parties on the other, will seek to fill the void.

As for the issue of disarming Hamas, it is not as important as it is portrayed, as 90% of its weapons have been destroyed, as indicated by Musa Abu Marzouk, and what remains is mostly light arms that cannot be removed even if the movement wishes to, especially since it has linked this issue to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Trump's welcome of Hamas's response without prior coordination with Israel reflects his urgency to achieve a quick success, while Netanyahu's government is experiencing shock over what it considers a "yes-coated rejection," which may reflect on Trump's own position depending on the Israeli reaction.

In light of the above, what are the proposed scenarios?

Scenario One: Proceeding with the Implementation of the Prisoner Exchange Deal and Cessation of War

In this possibility, Trump focuses on a tangible and quick accomplishment that enhances his image as a peacemaker, without delving into complex issues such as withdrawal, the future of Gaza, or the Palestinian state. The success of this scenario delivers direct humanitarian gains (release of prisoners, ceasefire) and gives Trump significant political and media capital, but leaves the roots of the crisis intact and turns the agreement into a temporary truce more than a permanent settlement. The danger of this scenario is that it may lead to a brief respite before the return of war, albeit in forms that may be closer to what is occurring in Lebanon. Nonetheless, it is the most realistic in terms of implementability in the short term.

Scenario Two: Trump Reverses His Welcome and Asks Hamas to Remove Its Reservations

This scenario places Hamas in a difficult dilemma: either they lift their reservations and effectively accept the Israeli conditions, which weakens them internally and portrays them as capitulators; or they refuse and risk being accused of sabotaging a historic opportunity for peace, thus granting Israel a broad international cover to continue its war. The success of this scenario hinges on Hamas's willingness to maneuver and its ability "to hold Israel accountable for the obstruction." Conversely, Trump would lose his image as a "pragmatic mediator" and revert to aligning himself with the Israeli position.

Scenario Three: Greenlighting Netanyahu to Continue the War

In this possibility, Trump aligns with Netanyahu's vision that asserts the necessity to "complete the mission," meaning weakening Hamas militarily and politically to the maximum before any settlement. The success of this scenario for Israel means continuing its attempts to impose its conditions by force, but it carries significant risks: exacerbation of the humanitarian catastrophe, further isolation of Israel internationally, and the potential for a wider regional explosion. As for Trump, he would lose the "peacemaker" image he aspires to and appear as a direct sponsor of a genocidal war. However, this scenario may find support among American and Israeli right circles who see that force alone is the solution.

Summary:

The first scenario is the closest to implementation in the short term because it offers all parties some gain without resolving the major issues.

The second scenario opens the door to a political impasse for both Hamas and Trump.

The third scenario entrenches war and opens possibilities for regional explosion, but satisfies Netanyahu and his allies.