Hamas Calls Trump’s Plan a “Double Disaster” — A Reflection of Deep Regional Fractures

When the Palestinian movement Hamas described former U.S. President Donald Trump’s Middle East peace plan as a “double disaster,” it wasn’t just political rhetoric. The phrase encapsulates a deep sense of betrayal felt across the Palestinian territories — and a broader regional disillusionment with American diplomacy in the Middle East.

The so-called “Deal of the Century,” unveiled by Trump in early 2020 alongside then–Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was presented as a historic roadmap to peace. Yet for Palestinians, it was a roadmap to further dispossession. The plan recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s “undivided capital,” endorsed Israeli sovereignty over large parts of the occupied West Bank, and offered a fragmented Palestinian state with limited autonomy.

Hamas’s sharp reaction — calling the proposal a “double disaster” — reflected what many Palestinians viewed as a dual calamity: the legitimization of occupation and the erosion of Palestinian political agency.

A Plan Without the Palestinians

From the outset, the plan’s flaw was structural: it was conceived without Palestinian participation. Both Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Authority (PA), based in the West Bank, rejected the plan outright. For them, it symbolized not negotiation but imposition — a deal dictated by Washington and celebrated by Tel Aviv.

Hamas leaders emphasized that no peace initiative could succeed without addressing the core Palestinian demands: ending occupation, ensuring the right of return for refugees, and recognizing East Jerusalem as the capital of a sovereign Palestinian state. By labeling the Trump plan a “double disaster,” the movement was not only condemning its content but also warning against its political consequences — further division among Palestinians and deeper regional normalization with Israel.

The Politics of Rejection

Critics of Hamas often argue that its rejectionist stance isolates Palestinians diplomatically. Yet the movement’s language in this case served a broader political purpose. By denouncing the Trump plan in absolute terms, Hamas sought to reassert its legitimacy as the uncompromising guardian of Palestinian rights. It also aimed to rally regional and international actors — especially those in the Arab and Muslim worlds — to reject what it portrayed as a betrayal of Palestine’s historical cause.

The call for “amendments,” however, suggests that Hamas was not entirely closing the door to diplomacy. It hinted at the movement’s awareness of the shifting geopolitical landscape: normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states, from the UAE to Morocco, had already transformed regional dynamics. In that context, the language of “amendment” could be read as an attempt to maintain political relevance rather than pure defiance.

A Regional Divide Deepens

The Trump plan’s aftermath laid bare a profound Arab divide. While some governments quietly welcomed the initiative as a pragmatic step toward regional stability, others — notably Jordan and Algeria — warned that it would inflame tensions and bury the two-state solution. For countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the reaction was more cautious: official statements stressed support for a negotiated settlement, even as they avoided direct criticism of Washington.

This fragmentation underscored the waning collective Arab position on Palestine — a reality Hamas has skillfully exploited to reinforce its role as the voice of steadfast resistance. Yet, paradoxically, this same stance has left it isolated diplomatically, reliant on regional patrons such as Iran and Qatar for survival.

Beyond Trump: Lasting Damage to Diplomacy

Even after Trump’s departure from office, the repercussions of his plan continue to shape the political landscape. The Biden administration has avoided a full reversal, focusing instead on economic aid and incremental measures. But the structural damage — the loss of faith in U.S. mediation — persists. For many Palestinians, the episode confirmed that Washington cannot act as an honest broker in a conflict where one party remains under occupation and the other wields overwhelming military power.

Hamas’s “double disaster” statement, then, was more than a denunciation of a single proposal. It was a verdict on decades of peace processes that promised hope but delivered humiliation.

The Trump plan’s failure and the reaction it provoked from Hamas expose a central truth: peace cannot be dictated; it must be negotiated between equals. By framing the plan as a “double disaster,” Hamas voiced the collective frustration of a people who feel excluded from their own destiny.

Whether one agrees with Hamas’s methods or not, the message resonates beyond Gaza’s borders. It reflects a deep, unresolved question that no external plan can erase: How can there be peace without justice?