Trump Prepares to Draw Final Red Line: Hamas Faces Countdown on Gaza Peace Deal

By: Fern Sidman

The future of the war in Gaza may now hinge on a deadline. President Donald Trump, according to White House officials, is poised to draw a definitive “red line” regarding how long Hamas will be given to accept a U.S.-brokered ceasefire framework backed by Israel. The proposal — a 20-point plan demanding disarmament of Hamas and the release of Israeli hostages — has been described by the administration as a “comprehensive” roadmap applauded by governments around the world. Yet in Gaza, Hamas’s leadership signals defiance, casting doubt on whether the terror organization is prepared to accept a deal that would dismantle its very foundation.

According to a report on Thursday at Israel National News (INN) this high-stakes moment gives voice to not only to Washington’s determination to end the war but also Israel’s insistence that Hamas’s military power be eradicated for any lasting peace to take hold.

White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt, speaking on Fox News, confirmed Thursday that President Trump intends to make clear when Hamas will be considered to have rejected the deal. “It’s a very good question, and it’s a red line that the president of the United States is going to have to draw. And I’m confident that he will,” Leavitt said.

She emphasized the depth of work that went into the proposal: “The president and his team worked very hard on this 20-point, comprehensive, detailed plan that has been applauded all over the world. This is an acceptable plan, and we hope and we expect Hamas should accept this plan so we can move forward.”

Trump himself had previously suggested that Hamas had “three to four days” to respond — a timeline that now looms over ongoing deliberations. As the Israel National News report highlighted, this marks the first time the Trump administration has openly signaled that Hamas will not be allowed to indefinitely stall or play for time while retaining its military grip on Gaza.

Reports from international media indicate that Hamas is sharply divided on whether to accept the U.S. proposal. According to a report on CBS News, the group was initially “leaning toward” acceptance earlier this week. Yet by Wednesday morning, a senior Hamas official told the BBC that rejection was more likely, insisting that Trump’s plan “serves Israel’s interests” and “ignores those of the Palestinian people.”

By Thursday, those signals hardened into outright resistance. The BBC reported that Qatar and Egypt, both key intermediaries in hostage negotiations, had reached out to Izz ad-Din al-Haddad, the head of Hamas’s military wing in Gaza. Al-Haddad reportedly dismissed Trump’s plan outright, declaring that it was designed to end Hamas’s rule regardless of their compliance. “From his perspective, there is no point in accepting it, and Hamas must continue fighting,” the report concluded.

This internal rejection echoes Hamas’s longstanding refusal to disarm — a central pillar of the U.S.-Israeli plan. As the INN report observed, Hamas views disarmament not as a negotiating point but as an existential threat: to surrender weapons would be to surrender power.

For Israel, the deal represents an opportunity to achieve key war aims without a prolonged military campaign. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already described the framework as a “path toward both hostage release and Hamas’s defeat,” making clear that disarmament and the end of Hamas’s military rule are non-negotiable.

The Israel National News report emphasized that Jerusalem sees Trump’s plan as aligned with Israel’s red lines: no premature withdrawal, no international arrangements that leave Hamas in place, and no return to the status quo that allowed the October 7 massacre. For Israelis, the U.S.-backed framework offers at least the potential to end the war without sacrificing security — provided Hamas complies.

Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, has been unequivocal: “If Hamas rejects the plan, Israel will finish the job, either the easy way or the hard way. Their return cannot wait.” His comments, quoted in the INN report, reflect the consensus within Israel’s security establishment: that the IDF will continue the war to its conclusion if diplomacy fails.

The involvement of Qatar and Egypt in relaying Hamas’s position highlights the enduring role of regional mediators. Both governments have positioned themselves as indispensable brokers, with Qatar in particular serving as the main channel to Hamas’s leadership. Yet their leverage remains uncertain.

According to reports cited by Israel National News, Hamas’s military leadership has historically been less amenable to external pressure than its political bureau abroad. While Qatar and Egypt may persuade Hamas to negotiate, they cannot compel al-Haddad and other commanders in Gaza to disarm — the very condition that makes Trump’s plan unacceptable to Hamas’s core.

For President Trump, the ceasefire plan is both a diplomatic gambit and a political statement. By setting a firm red line, the White House seeks to showcase American resolve and leadership at a time when skepticism over international deals runs high. Leavitt’s remarks suggest that Trump is prepared to confront Hamas’s rejection head-on and back Israel’s right to continue military operations if necessary.

The INN report pointed out that this moment may also define Trump’s Middle East legacy. The Abraham Accords, which reshaped Israel’s relations with several Arab states, demonstrated his administration’s willingness to challenge conventional wisdom. The current ceasefire framework similarly reflects a bid to craft a new paradigm: peace through Hamas’s disarmament and the imposition of international oversight.

Yet, as analysts note, success depends less on Washington’s design than on Hamas’s willingness to concede. And on that point, the early signs are grim.

The INN report repeatedly highlighted the precarious balance of hope and realism in Israel’s response to Trump’s proposal. On one hand, the plan represents a rare convergence of Israeli and American priorities: disarm Hamas, free the hostages, and create conditions for reconstruction without leaving Hamas in charge. On the other hand, skepticism abounds that Hamas will ever willingly comply with such terms.

As INN noted in its analysis, “Hamas has staked its identity on resistance. To lay down arms is to abandon the very cause it claims to represent. It is hard to see how this organization, forged in the ideology of perpetual struggle, will ever accept conditions that amount to its political and military dissolution.”

If Hamas rejects the deal, the consequences for Gaza will be severe. Trump has already warned that refusal would mean “a very sad end,” effectively granting Israel license to intensify its campaign. For Gazans, this could translate into prolonged suffering, further destruction of infrastructure, and deeper international isolation.

At the same time, the plan also holds out the promise of rapid relief if accepted. Within 72 hours of Israel’s withdrawal to designated lines, all hostages — living and deceased — would be released. Humanitarian aid would pour in under international supervision, infrastructure would be rebuilt, and Gaza would begin a transition to governance free from Hamas’s control.

It is precisely this fork in the road that Israel National News has underscored: Gaza can either begin the painful but necessary path to recovery or remain locked in perpetual conflict under Hamas’s grip.

As the days tick by, the world waits to see whether Hamas will formally respond. Trump’s “red line” is not yet spelled out in detail, but the message is clear: the clock is running, and patience is finite. For Israel, the outcome is binary — Hamas either accepts disarmament and returns the hostages, or the IDF continues the war until Hamas is defeated by force.

Israel National News has framed the moment as one of historic consequence. “This is not merely another ceasefire proposal,” one commentary noted. “It is a test of whether Hamas is willing to survive as a political actor at the price of surrendering its weapons — or whether it is determined to fight to the bitter end, dragging Gaza down with it.”

The ceasefire plan championed by President Trump and backed by Israel represents perhaps the clearest diplomatic offramp since the war began. Yet the very condition that makes it acceptable to Israel — Hamas’s disarmament — makes it anathema to Hamas itself.

As the Israel National News report emphasized, Israel cannot and will not allow Hamas to remain armed and in power. The coming days will therefore determine whether diplomacy achieves what months of warfare have yet to secure — or whether the conflict enters an even more dangerous phase.

For now, the red line has been drawn. The question is whether Hamas will cross it, or whether Israel will be forced once again to finish the job “the hard way.”