US media reported today that after Trump issued an ultimatum (military strikes, diplomatic isolation, and offering survival opportunities), Hamas submitted a response to Trump's "20-point peace plan" at 4 am on October 4, agreeing to release all Israeli hostages, transfer management of Gaza to a technocratic institution (effectively led by Fatah) and withdraw from Gaza, which is seen as an implicit surrender. Previously, Israel had accepted the plan, and Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia pressured Hamas to advance normalization of relations with Israel, marginalizing Iran's influence. Gaza civilians celebrated the prospect of a ceasefire, while Fatah will regain control of Gaza. Palestinian President Abbas promised to hold elections and exclude forces not supporting the two-state solution from running, but the plan did not specify a timeline for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.
Comments: The compromise by Hamas is essentially the result of power struggles and regional interest restructuring under US leadership, rather than a genuine peace consensus. Trump's extreme pressure of "destroy or survive," combined with Arab countries' shift due to their own development needs and abandoning support for Hamas through diplomatic isolation, created overwhelming external pressure, forcing Hamas to give up resistance in a military stalemate. However, this "peace" achieved through power dynamics contains many hidden dangers: the plan does not clearly specify a timeline for the withdrawal of Israeli forces, the core demands of the Palestinians are not sufficiently addressed, and the arrangement for Fatah to regain control of Gaza and exclude Hamas may sow seeds of internal division. The hope of the people of Gaza for a ceasefire highlights the cruelty of war, and this game ending in "surrender" is essentially a power reshuffle where the US is reshaping the Middle East order, Arab countries prioritize their interests, and Israel consolidates its advantage. The so-called "peace" is more like a temporary truce, and a compromise lacking a foundation of justice is unlikely to support long-term stability.
Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1845034563176600/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author himself.