The sobering reality is that despite the optimism surrounding recent diplomatic efforts in the Middle East, the Trump administration’s proposed peace deal for Gaza is not a pathway to resolution but rather a carefully constructed trap. The agreement is designed to strip Hamas of all leverage while offering Palestinians nothing in return, virtually guaranteeing its rejection and the continuation of a genocide.
A Deal Crafted in Tel Aviv, Not Washington
This is not an American peace plan in any meaningful sense. Rather, it represents an Israeli American initiative, crafted through close collaboration between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and figures within the Trump administration, most notably Jared Kushner. The distinction matters enormously. A neutral American mediation effort would presumably involve consultation with all parties and seek to balance competing interests. This agreement, by contrast, was developed without Hamas’s input and presented to them as a fait accompli‚ a done deal requiring only their signature.
The terms themselves reveal the lopsided nature of the arrangement. Hamas would be
required to release all hostages within a mere 72 hours and completely disarm‚ surrendering the two primary sources of leverage they possess in any negotiation. In exchange, Israel would withdraw from Gaza, though crucially, not completely. Perhaps most significantly, the proposal offers no political horizon for Palestinians, no pathway toward self-determination or statehood. It is a deal designed to give Israel everything it wants while giving Palestinians nothing.
The Strategic Logic of Rejection
Why would Hamas even consider such terms? They would be foolish to do so. Hamas currently possesses two forms of leverage: the hostages they hold and their military capabilities. These represent their only bargaining chips in a profoundly asymmetric conflict. To surrender both simultaneously, without securing meaningful concessions in return, would leave them utterly defenseless and without any means to influence future events.
Once disarmed and having released the hostages, Palestinians would have nothing left to prevent Israel from pursuing whatever policies it chooses in Gaza. The Israelis would be free to act with complete impunity, and Palestinians would have no recourse. From a strategic standpoint, acceptance of the deal would be tantamount to unconditional surrender without the protections that typically accompany such arrangements.
In all probability, Hamas will reject the proposal. And here the trap closes. Netanyahu has already made clear what will follow such a rejection: Israel will “finish the job.” In plain language, this means the continuation and likely intensification of military operations in Gaza. The peace proposal, then, functions less as a genuine diplomatic initiative and more as a pretext for escalation, allowing Israel to claim it offered a solution that was unreasonably refused.
The Genocide Question: When Mass Killing Becomes Elimination
The most appropriate characterization of Israel’s actions in Gaza is genocide. This is not a term employed casually or for rhetorical effect. It is grounded in the conclusions reached by virtually every major human rights organization that has examined the situation, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Israeli organization B’Tselem, United Nations independent commissions, and numerous genocide scholars.
Are all these organizations and experts anti-Semitic? Are they engaged in a coordinated conspiracy to smear Israel? Such suggestions are absurd. These are professionals whose job is precisely to study such matters, and they have examined the evidence carefully and systematically. Their consensus carries weight.
🇺🇸🇵🇸🇮🇱 Trump said he will fully support Israel if Hamas rejects the proposed deal to end the conflict in Gaza. pic.twitter.com/rAoUfm4dsZ
— Trump Truth Social Posts On X (@TrumpTruthOnX) September 29, 2025
The term “genocide” is often used too loosely in contemporary discourse. Not every mass killing in warfare constitutes genocide. Here is a historical comparison to illustrate the distinction: during World War II, the United States deliberately targeted Japanese civilians in bombing campaigns that killed an estimated 900,000 people, including those killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was “murder”‚ the intentional killing of civilians. Yet we cannot classify it as genocide because the intent was not to eliminate the Japanese people as such, but rather to force Japan’s surrender.
The Holocaust, by contrast, clearly was genocide. The Nazi regime sought the complete elimination of the Jewish people. The critical distinction lies in intent. When human rights organizations and genocide experts examine Israel’s actions in Gaza and conclude that they meet the criteria for genocide, they are making a judgment about intent‚ that the goal extends beyond military objectives to the elimination or forced removal of Palestinians as a people from Gaza. If not genocide, what should we call it? Mass murder? Ethnic cleansing? The semantic evasion changes nothing about the reality on the ground or the moral weight of what is occurring.
The Stain That Won’t Wash Away
This transcends immediate strategic calculations: the profound and lasting damage being done to Israel’s international reputation for as far as the eye can see. This is not temporary criticism that will fade with the next news cycle. Rather, Israel’s actions in Gaza represent a watershed moment that will fundamentally reshape how the country is perceived by the international community for generations.
The reputational cost is already visible in the unprecedented level of international condemnation, the growing isolation of Israel in multilateral forums, and the shifting attitudes, particularly among younger generations in Western countries that have traditionally been Israel’s strongest supporters. This is irreversible. Whatever strategic objectives Israel may achieve through its military campaign, the price in terms of moral standing and international legitimacy will be permanent and profound.
Two Presidents, Two Approaches to War
The impact extends beyond the immediate Gaza situation to broader questions about American foreign policy and presidential temperament. There is a sharp distinction between Donald Trump and Joe Biden in their approaches to military force and international conflict.
Trump is fundamentally not a warmonger. His instincts run toward deal-making rather than military action. When confronted with international challenges, his first impulse is not to reach for the gun but to negotiate, to find an arrangement that allows all parties to claim victory.
This preference for transactional diplomacy over military intervention represents a genuine difference in approach from many of his predecessors.
Biden, by contrast, has shown far less hesitation about employing military force. It is amazing to see the extent to which the Biden administration welcomed confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. The United States did virtually nothing to prevent that war. More damningly, when negotiations in Istanbul began to show real promise of a settlement, it was American and British pressure that pushed the Zelensky government to walk away from those talks. This pattern suggests a president far more comfortable with military solutions than diplomatic compromises.
Yet we should be careful not to paint Trump as a peace president who has successfully ended conflicts. The reality is more complicated and more frustrating. Despite his preferences and his campaign promises, Trump has not succeeded in shutting down the wars he inherited.
Moreover, he has initiated military actions of his own, including a June 22nd attack on Iran and a month-long campaign against Yemen. His goals have been thwarted, his instincts constrained by circumstances and by the pressures of the foreign policy establishment.
The Weight of the Office and the Burden of Age
At 79 years old, facing the immense complexities of the Gaza and Ukraine conflicts, Trump appears worn down. We can observe him on multiple occasions and notes that he lacks the bounce in his step that characterized his earlier time in office. The energy and bravado that defined his first term seem diminished.
This physical and perhaps psychological exhaustion is understandable given the pressures Trump faces. He is being pulled in multiple directions simultaneously. His political base wants him to end the war in Gaza and stop supporting what they increasingly see as Israeli atrocities. The international community is demanding American action to halt the violence. There may even be pressure from his own conscience, an awareness that the situation has spiraled beyond acceptable bounds.
Yet countervailing these pressures is the enormous influence of the Israeli lobby, which demands continued American support for Israel’s military operations. Trump is trying to thread an impossible needle: finding a way to end the war that will satisfy both his desire for peace and the demands of pro-Israel constituencies. The proposed peace deal represents his attempt at this impossible balancing act‚ and it fails precisely because it tries to satisfy only one side of the equation.
The Information War and the Reality on the Ground
One might assume that the difficulty in assessing the situation in Gaza stems from lack of information. Israel has made considerable efforts to restrict media access to the territory, limiting the ability of journalists to report on conditions there. Despite these efforts, we have very good information about what is happening inside Gaza. The evidence is sufficient to understand the reality on the ground.
The question, then, is not one of facts but of interpretation and terminology. We know what is occurring. The debate centers on what to call it and how to characterize it. This is where the genocide question becomes central‚ not because the facts are in dispute, but because the implications of different characterizations are so profound.
A Catastrophe Foretold
We can predict with considerable confidence that Hamas will reject the proposed deal because accepting it would be strategically suicidal. Netanyahu will then proceed to “finish the job,” continuing and likely intensifying military operations. The consequences for Palestinians will be catastrophic.
This is not merely a prediction of continued violence. There is something more systematic and more final‚ an escalation aimed at fundamentally altering the reality in Gaza, whether through massive casualties, forced displacement, or the destruction of Hamas as an organization and the social infrastructure that supports it. The human cost will be enormous.
Meanwhile, Israel’s international standing will continue to deteriorate. The reputational damage that has already occurred will deepen and solidify. Future generations will look back on this period as a defining moment when Israel crossed lines that cannot be uncrossed, when actions were taken that cannot be justified or forgotten.
Beyond Optimism and Pessimism: The Logic of Tragedy
Even if we do not rely on moral condemnation alone, though the moral dimension is certainly present, and assess the situation with the cold logic of strategic analysis, we conclude that the peace deal will fail not because people are evil or irrational, but because the incentives and constraints facing the key actors make failure virtually inevitable.
“Statements of Support for Middle East Peace Deal”
(TS: 01 Oct 19:28 ET) pic.twitter.com/7NS9CwNiJx
— Trump Truth Social Posts On X (@TrumpTruthOnX) October 1, 2025
Hamas cannot accept terms that would leave it defenseless. Israel, having committed to eliminating Hamas, cannot offer terms that would allow the organization to survive with its capabilities intact. Trump cannot satisfy both his desire to end the war and the demands of the Israeli lobby. The pieces do not fit together. The puzzle has no solution.
Read more: Aid Flotilla Intercepted: Israel Faces Protests Worldwide
This is the logic of tragedy in international relations‚ situations where all actors are pursuing what they perceive as their vital interests, yet the collective result is disaster. No amount of goodwill or clever diplomacy can overcome the fundamental incompatibility of the positions. The structure of the situation drives the outcome.
Conclusion: A Trap Without an Exit
Trump-Netanyahu peace proposal is a trap in multiple senses. It is a trap for Hamas, designed to force them into an impossible choice between accepting terms that would leave them powerless or rejecting terms that would justify continued Israeli military action. It is a trap for Trump, who sought to position himself as a peacemaker but has instead become associated with a proposal that will almost certainly lead to escalated violence. And it is a trap for Palestinians, who face catastrophic consequences regardless of how their representatives respond.
Most fundamentally, it may be a trap for Israel itself. The short-term military objectives being pursued in Gaza come at an enormous and permanent cost to Israel’s international legitimacy and moral standing. The stain on Israel’s reputation will not fade with time. It will shape how Israel is perceived and how it can operate in the international system for decades to come.
The tragedy is that this outcome appears largely inevitable given the current trajectory. The deal will be rejected, the violence will continue, the suffering will mount, and the reputational damage will deepen. No easy solutions are available – a trap from which there appears to be no escape. The question is whether anyone with the power to change the trajectory is willing to listen.
The author is a Seattle based entrepreneur, technologist and a social activist. His can be reached at Linkedln: https://www.linkedin.com/in/asad-faizi/ or email:asadfaizi@gmail.com