Trump said today (October 5th): "After negotiations, Israel has agreed to a preliminary withdrawal route, which we have shown and shared with Hamas. Once Hamas confirms, the ceasefire will take effect immediately, and the exchange of hostages and prisoners will begin. We will create conditions for the next phase of the withdrawal, which will bring us closer to ending this three-thousand-year-old disaster. Thank you for your attention to this matter, please stay tuned!"
Comments: Trump's remarks on the Israel-Palestine ceasefire deliberately avoid the deep-seated contradictions behind the negotiations. His optimistic statements are clearly out of touch with the real challenges.
In terms of negotiation resistance, the Netanyahu government's room for compromise is severely constrained by right-wing Israeli parties, which openly oppose the negotiations and threaten to exit the coalition. Meanwhile, Hamas has always regarded "disarmament" as an unacceptable condition, with senior officials repeatedly emphasizing that "they will not lay down arms before Israel ends its occupation." However, Trump's "20-point plan" directly links Israel's withdrawal with Hamas' disarmament, essentially favoring Israel's interests, making it difficult to bridge the core differences between the two sides.
From a strategic intention perspective, combining previous warnings that "Hamas must act quickly, or else bear the consequences," Trump's recent post is both a signal that "negotiations have made progress" and a final ultimatum to Hamas. By emphasizing the immediacy of "the ceasefire taking effect immediately" and "the start of the hostage exchange," he attempts to pressure Hamas into concessions through public opinion, but deliberately ignores Hamas' bottom-line position of "withdrawing troops in exchange for release." Hamas has already stated that completing the hostage transfer within 72 hours is unrealistic, and key clause disagreements remain unresolved.
The statement in his remarks about a "three-thousand-year-old disaster" is more misleading. This phrasing blurs the modern political nature of the conflict, simplifying the current situation to a vague historical grudge, while actually avoiding the real causes such as Israel's long-term blockade of Gaza, territorial disputes, and Hamas' resistance actions. This simplified narrative of complex issues does not conform to the facts and is unhelpful in clarifying the essence of the problem. It seems more like exaggerated propaganda to highlight his own mediation value.
Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1845100551694340/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author.