jordan pulse -

Ahmed Abdulbaset Rjoub
Researcher and Strategic Planner

In a foggy, complex geopolitical scene, Hamas today holds a “fireball” represented by U.S. President Donald Trump’s initiative to halt the war in Gaza. This initiative is not just another episode in the long Arab–Israeli conflict; it is an existential dilemma read as a “reflection axis,” in which each side sees what reinforces its own narrative. While Israel views it as “a victory that tastes like a loss,” Palestinians see it as “a loss that tastes like a victory.”

Context: A Black Box and a Historical Labor
Under Trump’s leadership, the United States is experiencing a kind of “new labor” — a soft coup against traditional institutions and values — which has turned the analysis of its foreign policy into a guessing game inside a black box. In this climate, eight Arab and Muslim leaders convened to extract a ceasefire decision “from the lion’s mouth.” But the deal produced by Washington carries a deeper agenda that places the “burning ball” squarely in Hamas’s court.

A murky question emerges: What is Tony Blair’s role in postwar discussions? Some say “the devil wasn’t available,” implying that the old British colonial role is being recreated in a new guise. The plan appears “diabolical” and aimed at enabling Israeli expansion, yet historical certainties suggest that such schemes are destined to fail.

Unpacking the “Fireball”: The Trump–Netanyahu Paper
The scene promoted at the White House is essentially a “Trump–Netanyahu show.” The initiative is the “Trump–Netanyahu paper,” not a genuine peace plan. Its goal was to empty what was being circulated at the United Nations and reorder the cards according to the American–Israeli vision.

Different versions of the initiative — the Turkish version, the Arab version, and Netanyahu’s version (the final implementation draft) — reveal its tactical nature. It is unsurprising that any American initiative would only emerge in full coordination with the Occupation state.

Key provisions of the plan (Netanyahu’s version) include:
1. The release of all Israeli captives within 48 hours of the ceasefire.
2. A gradual and partial Israeli withdrawal, while retaining full “freedom of security action” inside the Gaza Strip.
3. The exclusion of the Palestinian Authority’s role, limiting it to a near-symbolic function and refusing its administration of the Strip.
4. A transitional plan supervised by “international experts” led by Tony Blair, administered by the United States, with a strong focus on security.
5. A transitional period of 3 to 5 years — the pivotal point that raises alarm. During these years, with Israel retaining veto power and the ability to facts on the ground in the West Bank and Gaza, what will remain of Palestinian land? Here lies the crux where the two-state solution could be buried forever.
6. A multinational Arab force to manage security under direct American oversight headed by a U.S. general. This model evokes the failed experiment in Lebanon, where Israel violated ceasefires thousands of times under the eyes of international supervisors.
7. Shifting the burden of Gaza’s reconstruction — at a cost that may reach $200 billion — onto Arab states to rebuild what the Israeli war machine destroyed.
This reading confirms that the plan is “booby-trapped.” Tomorrow, Americans and Israelis may publicly argue over it, and Israelis may appear to oppose it, while in reality it is a literal embodiment of Netanyahu’s vision.

The Impossible Equation: How Should Hamas Act?
Here lies the dilemma: how can Hamas hold this “fireball” without burning itself? Some oppose accepting the initiative as a new form of colonialism — a rejection that is legitimate. But what these opponents overlook is that rejection could also mean suicide, wiping out what remains of people, stone, and trees in Gaza.

Before saying yes or no, unity is paramount. It is essential that Palestinian factions agree that the preservation of lives and blood is above all considerations. We should not only ask those who bear arms in Palestine what they want, but also ask the unarmed citizens. That civilian will answer: “We want you to unite as Palestinian components for the sake of our people, not for your political agendas.” They will say: “We want to die defending our cause, not to die because of rash, irresponsible decisions.” They will shout to the world: “We are a people who deserve life — leave us to live on the soil of Palestine, not to die beneath it.”

Future Scenarios: Between Hammer and Anvil
In this complex scene, Hamas faces an existential test. Its options appear limited given the official Arab and Islamic endorsement of the initiative, premised on “this is the best possible.” If that Arab–Islamic cover grows stronger, Hamas will find itself depleted militarily and politically, and pressures may push it to accept the initiative while trying to negotiate “marginal improvements.” Consequently, it is likely we will see a coerced positive response from it.

The Occupation is shameful, and resistance washes that shame away. But the hardest decision is choosing the right battle at the right time and place to achieve freedom. The question is not whether Hamas can carry the “fireball,” but whether it can throw it in the right direction without burning itself and Gaza’s future.