By: Fern Sidman

The fragile diplomatic theater surrounding U.S. President Donald Trump’s newly unveiled Gaza peace initiative faced its first major challenge this week, as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) terror organization rejected the proposal outright, even before Hamas issued an official response. The move, reported by The Algemeiner as part of its ongoing coverage of the war’s international dimensions, has widened rifts among Palestinian factions and added pressure on Hamas to formally oppose the plan, which many see as Washington’s boldest attempt yet to end the nearly two-year-long conflict.

The Trump framework, a 20-point plan rolled out Monday at the White House alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, centers on three key pillars: the immediate return of Israeli hostages, the demilitarization of Gaza through the dismantling of Hamas’s arsenal, and a phased Israeli military withdrawal under international supervision. Trump framed the plan as a final opportunity for Hamas to secure a ceasefire and reconstruction path for Gaza. “Hamas has three or four days to respond,” Trump warned Tuesday. “If it’s not, it’s going to be a very sad end.”

PIJ Secretary-General Ziyad al-Nakhalah issued a blistering rejection of the plan in a statement carried by Arab outlets and cited in The Algemeiner report accusing the U.S. of acting as Israel’s proxy. He branded the proposal “a formula for perpetuating Israeli aggression against the Palestinian nation” and claimed Washington was attempting to secure diplomatically what Israel had not achieved militarily.

“Israel aims to enforce, with the support of the United States, what it could not accomplish through military action,” al-Nakhalah declared. “Consequently, we view the U.S.-Israeli declaration as a catalyst for escalating conflict in the region.”

The rejection by PIJ, a group that has fought shoulder-to-shoulder with Hamas throughout the war, effectively corners Hamas into either publicly opposing the deal or risking being seen as yielding to U.S. and Israeli dictates. Analysts quoted by The Algemeiner suggested that Hamas, which thrives on projecting uncompromising resistance, may find it politically untenable to embrace even a partial demilitarization plan, regardless of its benefits in halting hostilities.

For his part, Prime Minister Netanyahu lent full-throated support to Trump’s initiative during Monday’s White House press conference, declaring that the plan “achieves our war aims.” Netanyahu emphasized that Israel’s objectives remain unchanged: the release of all hostages, the destruction of Hamas’s governing and military apparatus, and ensuring Gaza never again serves as a base for terror.

“If Hamas rejects U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan, or if they supposedly accept it and then basically do everything to counter it, then Israel will finish the job by itself,” Netanyahu asserted, a statement prominently reported by The Algemeiner. “This can be done the easy way, or it can be done the hard way. But it will be done.”

The prime minister’s remarks echoed the mood in Jerusalem, where the public remains deeply scarred by the Oct. 7, 2023, atrocities that launched the war. On that day, Hamas-led forces, including PIJ militants, stormed across the Gaza border, murdering 1,200 Israelis and abducting 251. According to Israel National News and The Algemeiner, 48 hostages remain in captivity, with 20 believed alive. Their fate hangs over every policy debate, intensifying the urgency for a workable resolution.

Although Hamas has not yet issued a formal response, its initial reaction mirrored PIJ’s rhetoric. Hamas official Mahmoud Mardawi dismissed Trump’s announcement as “an attempt to stifle international momentum and recognition of the Palestinian state,” adding that Hamas would not accept any proposal that excludes self-determination.

This calculated ambiguity has raised questions about Hamas’s internal divisions and its calculus. According to the information provided in The Algemeiner report, Hamas leaders are weighing whether to outright reject the plan or maneuver diplomatically to extract concessions. Trump’s tight three-to-four-day deadline is designed to force a binary choice, reducing Hamas’s room for maneuver.

In contrast to the Palestinian factions’ intransigence, several Arab and European leaders have voiced support for the Trump initiative. The president himself highlighted the unusual breadth of international backing, stating Tuesday that “we’re just waiting for Hamas.”

The plan also carries the imprimatur of regional leaders, with Arab states reportedly prepared to join an international “Board of Peace” that would oversee Gaza’s disarmament and reconstruction. According to the information contained in The Algemeiner report, the proposed board would include Arab governments, Israel, the U.S., and other global actors, tasked with ensuring Hamas’s compliance and channeling aid.

Perhaps the most controversial element of Trump’s plan is its offer of amnesty for Hamas members who renounce violence. Under the proposal, such individuals would be permitted to leave Gaza peacefully, while those choosing to stay must disarm. For Palestinians, this is pitched as an escape hatch; for Israelis, it is a mechanism to avoid endless cycles of arrest and recidivism.

The plan also envisions large-scale humanitarian relief and an ambitious economic redevelopment package. Infrastructure projects, such as road clearing, hospital reconstruction, and bakery restoration, would be overseen by the United Nations, the Red Crescent, and international partners. Longer-term, Gaza would be administered by a technocratic Palestinian committee, supported by outside experts, under the oversight of the “Board of Peace.”

While Hamas and PIJ lash out, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has cautiously welcomed the plan. As The Algemeiner report observed, the PA’s response underscores its desire to reestablish relevance in post-war Gaza. Western governments, too, have been in dialogue with the PA about conditions under which it might assume governance responsibilities once Hamas is dismantled.

But skepticism abounds. Critics highlight the PA’s entrenched corruption and its “pay-for-slay” program, which continues to reward terrorists and their families. Netanyahu himself reiterated Monday that the PA can have “no role whatsoever in Gaza without undergoing a radical and genuine transformation.” Few Israelis, he insisted, trust that “the leopard will change its spots.”

Trump’s blunt style has given the proposal a sense of urgency. “Hamas is either going to be doing it or not,” he said Tuesday. “Not much room for negotiation.” He underscored the stakes by pledging U.S. backing for Israel should Hamas refuse: “If Hamas rejects the deal, Bibi, you will have our full backing to finish the job of destroying the threat of Hamas.”

According to the report in The Algemeiner, Trump’s approach reflects both his transactional style and his desire to present himself as a dealmaker capable of ending a conflict that has eluded successive administrations. Whether this high-pressure tactic succeeds, however, depends not only on Hamas but also on Israel’s willingness to calibrate its military objectives with political compromises.

On the ground, the Israel Defense Forces continue to apply pressure in Gaza. With three divisions pushing deeper into Gaza City and operations ongoing against Hamas infrastructure, Israel has sought to maintain momentum while diplomatic negotiations unfold. Military analysts quoted in The Algemeiner report have argued that Israel’s battlefield leverage is central to forcing Hamas to even consider Trump’s terms.

Yet, as PIJ’s statement indicates, the terrorists may prefer martyrdom to surrender. Should Hamas follow suit, Israel may find itself compelled to pursue what Netanyahu calls the “hard way”: a full-scale military defeat of Hamas regardless of international pressure.

International observers remain divided on the plan’s viability. Supporters view it as a bold attempt to combine military realities with diplomatic opportunity, while detractors see it as unrealistic, particularly given Hamas’s ideological rigidity.

Geoff Ramsey of the Atlantic Council, quoted in multiple outlets, suggested that the Trump-Netanyahu plan faces “near-insurmountable obstacles,” not least the lack of a credible Palestinian partner for governance. Still, as The Algemeiner report pointed out, the plan’s release has shifted the narrative, reframing the conversation from Israel’s military campaign to a potential pathway for reconstruction.

The rejection by PIJ highlights the deep ideological chasm between Trump’s peace vision and the maximalist goals of Palestinian terror groups. For Israel, the plan offers a chance to consolidate battlefield gains into a diplomatic framework, though Netanyahu has made clear that Israel will not compromise on core security needs. For Hamas, the deadline looming this week forces an existential choice: disarm and yield governance or face intensified destruction.

As The Algemeiner report emphasized, this moment may prove decisive in shaping not only Gaza’s future but also the broader trajectory of U.S.-Israeli relations, Arab diplomacy, and the war on terror. Whether remembered as a genuine turning point or a missed opportunity will depend on decisions made in the coming days — decisions that could either pave the way for reconstruction or condemn Gaza to further devastation.