Dr. Avi Perry is a former professor at Northwestern University, a former Bell Labs researcher and manager, and later served as Vice President at NMS Communications. He represented the United States on the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Standards Committee, where he authored significant portions of the G.168 standard. He is the author of the thriller novel 72 Virgins and a Cambridge University Press book on voice quality in wireless networks, and is a regular op-ed contributor to The Jerusalem Post and Israel National News.
Donald Trump recently unveiled his much-anticipated 20-point plan to end the war in Gaza. He presented it with characteristic bravado, promising it would stop the bloodshed, secure the release of hostages, bring aid into Gaza, and open a path toward long-term peace. On paper, the plan seemed sweeping, comprehensive, even generous. But within hours of Hamas’s response, its fatal flaw was exposed.
Hamas answered with what looked, at first glance, like a cautious acceptance — a “yes” shadowed by qualifications. Yet those qualifications were not minor details. They were, in fact, outright rejections of the plan’s core demands. In diplomacy, the “but” often outweighs the “yes.” And in this case, Hamas’s “yes… but” is simply a hard “no.”
The Three Pillars of Refusal
The rejection comes down to three decisive points.
First, Hamas refuses to disarm.
Trump’s plan was built around the concept of Gaza becoming a demilitarized, terror-free zone. Without demilitarization, peace is impossible. Israel has been consistent on this point from the very beginning: a Gaza that continues to stockpile weapons, dig tunnels, and rebuild rocket arsenals is a Gaza that will perpetually threaten Israeli civilians. Hamas’s refusal here is not symbolic — it is an open declaration of intent to remain armed and dangerous.
Second, Hamas refuses to release all hostages within 72 hours.
Trump made this an early benchmark of credibility. The immediate release of hostages, both living and deceased, was to be the foundation of trust and the humanitarian gesture signaling a genuine break from terror. Hamas’s reply — that such a demand is “infeasible” — is not a matter of logistics. It is a tactic. Hostages have long been Hamas’s bargaining chips, its human shield against pressure. To delay their release is to maintain leverage. In practice, Hamas’s refusal on this point signals it has no interest in reducing the suffering of innocents or in building goodwill.
Third, Hamas refuses to leave Gaza or accept safe passage elsewhere.
Trump’s plan allowed Hamas members a choice: disarm and remain, or leave Gaza under international guarantees. Both were rejected. The message is unmistakable — Hamas intends to continue ruling Gaza, not as administrators of civilian life, but as the self-appointed vanguard of permanent war.
When examined together, these three refusals amount to a full rejection of Trump’s vision. No demilitarization. No timely release of hostages. No departure of Hamas leadership. What is left? Nothing of substance.
Trump’s Miscalculation
The problem is not only Hamas’s rejection. It is also Trump’s miscalculation. The president heralded his plan as a breakthrough, emphasizing Hamas’s “agreement in principle.” But he fell for the trap of hearing the word “yes” and ignoring the conditions that nullify it.
This is not the first time negotiators have stumbled on the mirage of conditional acceptance. History is littered with peace talks where one side said “yes” to the headlines but “no” in the fine print. From Yasser Arafat’s hedging at Camp David to North Korea’s endless “commitments” to denuclearization, the pattern is the same: agree to the framework, then gut its meaning by rejecting its core obligations.
Trump, in his eagerness to claim victory, overlooked the “but.” And in doing so, he risks legitimizing Hamas’s intransigence. By treating their response as something other than rejection, he inadvertently weakens the credibility of his own plan.
Israel’s Bottom Line
For Israel, the demands have never changed. They are clear, simple, and non-negotiable:
- Hamas must be out of Gaza.
- Gaza must be demilitarized.
- All hostages must be released within 72 hours.
These are not side issues to be bargained down in endless negotiations. They are the essence of Israel’s war effort and the prerequisite for any sustainable peace. Without them, Gaza remains a launchpad for terror, Israeli families remain hostage to Hamas’s cruelty, and Israel remains in a perpetual state of siege.
Hamas knows this. That is why their rejection is framed as a “yes… but.” They hope to exploit international pressure, to present themselves as reasonable, and to paint Israel as the spoiler if the deal collapses. But behind the diplomatic smoke, their message is plain: Hamas intends to stay, and Hamas intends to fight.
The Broader Trap
Hamas’s strategy is not merely to reject Israel’s terms. It is to play the global audience. By issuing statements that appear conciliatory — “we accept, but” — they shift blame onto Israel and its allies. If Trump, or anyone else, accepts this framing, Hamas gains a propaganda victory even while preparing for the next round of conflict.
This tactic mirrors earlier propaganda strategies. Just as Hamas launches rockets from civilian neighborhoods in order to maximize images of civilian suffering, they now launch half-hearted replies to peace proposals in order to maximize diplomatic confusion. Their goal is not coexistence. It is survival as a movement and the preservation of their grip on Gaza.
The Stakes for Trump
Trump’s credibility as a negotiator is now at stake. He has prided himself on being a dealmaker who can succeed where others have failed. But deals require both sides to accept the fundamentals. By presenting Hamas’s “yes… but” as something short of rejection, Trump risks appearing naïve. Worse, he risks being seen as an enabler of Hamas’s deception.
The danger is clear: if Trump declares progress where none exists, then his threats of consequences for rejection lose their teeth. Hamas will know he is unwilling to acknowledge a “no” even when it stares him in the face. His leverage disappears. His credibility with Israel and its allies erodes. And his promise to impose consequences becomes little more than bluster.
The Unavoidable Truth
The unavoidable truth is this: Hamas’s answer is No. Not a partial yes. Not an opening bid. Not a path to compromise. A full, uncompromising, unambiguous no.
Until Hamas is out of Gaza, until Gaza is demilitarized, and until all hostages are released within 72 hours, there can be no peaceful coexistence. Any plan — Trump’s or anyone else’s — that overlooks this reality is doomed to fail. The world may wish for shortcuts, but Israel’s security and regional stability cannot be built on illusions.
Conclusion
Trump’s plan was ambitious, sweeping, even daring. But ambition is not enough when it collides with reality. Hamas’s refusal to disarm, to release all hostages within 72 hours, and to relinquish control of Gaza is not a matter of quibbling over details. These refusals strike at the very heart of the conditions that Israel — and any realistic framework for peace — requires.
Israel’s bottom line is crystal clear:
- Hamas must be out of Gaza.
- Gaza must be demilitarized.
- All hostages must be released within 72 hours.
Without these three conditions, there can be no ceasefire, no coexistence, no peace. Hamas’s response, dressed up as a “yes… but,” was in truth a blunt rejection of all three.
If Trump insists on spinning this rejection as an opening, he risks undermining his own credibility. A dealmaker cannot afford to confuse illusions with agreements, nor can he ignore the essence of what peace requires. Unless he recognizes Hamas’s response for what it is — a clear and uncompromising No — his threats, promises, and proposals will all ring hollow.
And once credibility is lost, it is gone not just for Trump, but for the very possibility of a serious negotiation.
Hamas has spoken. Their answer is no. Israel’s demands are non-negotiable. The world must face that reality, not indulge in illusions.