Trump's welcome to Hamas' response.. A new policy or a deceptive move?

Dr. Hassan Ayoub: Trump's plan, if it remains without clear amendments, carries in most of its clauses a serious violation of Palestinian national rights.
Suleiman Basharat: Trump's speed in publishing Hamas's response is a step to cut off Netanyahu's path to prevent any attempts to rearrange the cards.
Dr. Hussein Al-Daik: Hamas's response is not just a political statement but the establishment of a new equation in which the American can no longer impose his vision alone.
Samir Anabtawi: The concessions made by Hamas require a stance from the organization and the authority to prevent events from being directed according to Netanyahu's and Trump's interests.
Dr. Saad Nimer: Trump's goal is to end the Gaza file, which has become a pressure on Washington both externally and internally after the widening isolation it faces due to its stance on the war.
Adnan Al-Sabah: The established strategic relations between America and Israel make it impossible to take a step of this magnitude without prior coordination.

The announcement by U.S. President Donald Trump of a ceasefire in Gaza, in a surprising swift move, raises concerns about whether it is merely a deceptive step to release Israeli prisoners or a strategic move to stop the war on the Gaza Strip.
Writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors, in separate talks with "Y," believe that Trump's announcement did not come in a vacuum, but rather under escalating pressures on Washington from the continuation of the war and its repercussions on American interests, with Trump keen to present a tangible achievement on the peace front, to record himself as a peacemaker deserving of the Nobel Prize. They point out that this announcement represents a pivotal moment, being evaluated between those who see it as an opportunity for a long-term truce and those who warn that it could turn into a temporary tactical step if it does not hold on the ground.
Analysts confirm that the response provided by Hamas was careful and intelligent, as it maintained a balance between agreeing to a ceasefire and allowing aid in, while not abandoning Palestinian national constants.

The announcement should not be given greater strategic weight than it deserves.

Dr. Hassan Ayoub, a professor of political science and a specialist in American affairs, believes that the announcement by U.S. President Donald Trump of a ceasefire in Gaza, despite its notable political implications, should not be exaggerated or given greater strategic weight than it deserves.
Ayoub emphasizes that the essence of the matter lies in reading this announcement in its real context, not in the "romantic" discourse that Trump tried to present as a solution to a conflict "that has lasted for thousands of years," as he described it.
 Ayoub clarifies that this characterization is a misleading and dangerous description because it reduces the conflict to a religious dimension, while it is essentially a liberation struggle related to the political and national rights of the Palestinian people.
He stresses that it is impossible to assert that Trump announced his step without the knowledge of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but the timing of the announcement in light of what is known as "the sanctity of Saturday" in Israel opens the door to the possibility that the announcement preceded full coordination with the Israeli government, a possibility imposed by the nature of the close alliance between the two sides.
He suggests that Trump personally got what he wanted from Hamas's response, which came in the form of "yes, but," despite the fact that Trump and Israel had previously rejected any conditional response; this time they accepted it due to accumulated pressures.
Ayoub points out that part of this acceptance is due to Trump's agreement — according to political assessments — with leaders of eight Arab and Islamic countries on general lines for the political path, which made his response faster than expected, especially after official statements issued by the foreign ministers of Qatar, Egypt, and Pakistan regarding the changes made by Netanyahu and his team to the plan in coordination with Trump's advisors.

This moment carries an important strategic significance.

Ayoub believes that this moment carries an important strategic significance, represented in the U.S. administration's readiness to engage directly with Hamas.
However, Ayoub warns against a hasty reading of this as a radical shift in American policy, as Washington may use this approach to play on the Palestinian division between the Palestinian Authority on one side and Hamas on the other.
He emphasizes that the movement's response was clear in this regard, as it avoided giving the U.S. administration or Israel the opportunity to exploit that division, and confirmed that any discussion of major political issues must take place within the framework of a unified Palestinian national context.
Ayoub believes that the upcoming negotiations will be complex and lengthy, and that the role of the United States will be limited to pressure, not to impose just solutions, stressing that Trump's announcement with such speed and enthusiasm reflects that all parties — Washington, Arab countries, Hamas, and Israel — are