How Hamas Is Navigating Trump’s Gaza Ultimatum

In an exclusive interview, veteran Hamas official Mohammad Nazzal discusses strategy, red lines, and Israel’s attempt to assassinate Palestinian negotiators.

Senior Hamas official Mohammad Nazzal in an interview with Drop Site News on October 1, 2025.

Hamas officials are conducting an intense series of meetings with Palestinian factions and regional mediators to formulate the Palestinian response to the 20-point Gaza plan announced by President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Monday. On Tuesday, Trump gave Hamas “three or four days” to respond to what is effectively an ultimatum, threatening the U.S. would empower Israel to indefinitely continue its war of annihilation on Gaza if Hamas did not agree to the plan wholesale. When asked if there is room for Hamas to negotiate the terms, Trump replied, “not much.”

“Trump is dealing with us as if we have to accept this plan based on the well-known English phrase: Take it or leave it. This is unacceptable in political practice. It cannot be a matter of either accepting or rejecting an agreement outright,” said Mohammad Nazzal, a veteran Hamas official and longtime member of its political bureau, in an interview with Drop Site. “This plan was formulated without the participation of Hamas or any Palestinian party, including the Palestinian Authority. So how can the U.S. administration reach an agreement with one side of the conflict while excluding the Palestinian side?”

“This plan is not Trump’s plan; it is an Israeli plan,” he added. “I say this with deep regret: the United States of America has come to act as an agent of the Zionist entity.”

Nonetheless, Nazzal—who has been a member of Hamas since 1989 and has served in its political bureau since 1996—said Hamas is carefully reviewing the document and would soon offer its official response. “We are approaching the plan with a high degree of responsibility,” he said. “We began studying it and holding consultations as soon as we received it.”

While Nazzal said some aspects of the proposal may be acceptable to Hamas and closely align with principles the group had previously agreed to, he described most of the terms as Israeli edicts. “Public opinion within the Palestinian factions is uncomfortable with the plan that was presented. There are some positives in the plan, but the negatives outweigh them,” he said. “Unless the plan is changed or significant modifications are made to certain points, I believe it will be difficult to accept it as it stands.”

As in previous “ceasefire” talks, Hamas negotiators plan to draft a series of proposed amendments and requests for more details on various terms outlined in the proposal. “It is clear that the plan is a broad and vague outline that, by its nature, requires negotiation. Every point mentioned in the plan needs a negotiation process. We do not want to proceed on the basis that what is presented in the plan represents a final, non-negotiable position,” Nazzal said. “Trump wants to impose what he wants through this plan. He was clear on the issues related to Israeli demands, but vague on the positions related to Palestinian demands.”

Within 72 hours of an agreement, the plan says, Hamas must release all Israeli captives held in Gaza. There are believed to be 20 living Israelis and the bodies of 28 deceased remaining in the Strip. Only after all captives are freed would Israel then release 250 Palestinians sentenced to life and 1,700 Palestinians from Gaza taken captive after October 7, 2023, including all women and children. In exchange for the remains of each deceased Israeli held in Gaza, Israel would return the bodies of 15 Palestinians, according to the plan.

Read Drop Site’s full breakdown of the 20-point plan, released by the U.S. on Monday, here.

Hamas is well aware that its only real leverage is the fact that it continues to hold Israelis in Gaza. “It is possible that this agreement will last only 72 hours, meaning they would take the Israeli captives and then not follow through with the rest of the agreement. There are no guarantees,” Nazzal said. “That’s why I believe that when we delve into the details of the plan, we must include guarantees that ensure the agreement is fully implemented and not cut short. There must be guarantees that the release of all captives in those initial hours will not allow the Americans and Israelis to walk away from fulfilling the rest of the deal.”

These concerns are well founded. Israel has repeatedly violated the terms of previous ceasefire agreements, including the January 2025 deal that was endorsed by both Trump and his predecessor Joe Biden. Israel conducted regular strikes inside Gaza during the first phase of the deal and then unilaterally abandoned the agreement entirely in March, imposed a sweeping blockade, and resumed its scorched earth bombing of Gaza.

The new Trump plan requires the “demilitarization of Gaza” and links the delivery of humanitarian aid and life essentials to a vague certification that areas of Gaza are demilitarized. “All military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt,” it states. “There will be a process of demilitarization of Gaza under the supervision of independent monitors, which will include placing weapons permanently beyond use through an agreed process of decommissioning.”

Hamas has long maintained that it will not sign an agreement that would strip Palestinians of their right of armed resistance against Israeli occupation.

“The weapons that Hamas has are light weapons compared to what the Israelis have. The Zionist entity has a nuclear reactor and possesses a nuclear bomb. No one talks about disarming this Zionist entity, while there is talk about disarming the Palestinian resistance,” Nazzal said. “The discussion about disarming the resistance should come after the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.” Hamas officials have previously told Drop Site that armed resistance factions would only disband as part of a process of integrating their fighters into a Palestinian national army capable of defending an independent state.

A fact that is seldom mentioned in the Western media around Trump’s Gaza plan is that on August 18 Hamas formally accepted the previous U.S.-Israeli ceasefire framework. In doing so, Hamas made major concessions on a range of issues. That deal would have included a 60-day initial ceasefire and the release of half of the remaining Israeli captives. Israel never responded to Hamas’s acceptance and instead launched a massive ground invasion of Gaza City and announced its intent to force a million Palestinians from their homes and shelters.

The last time Hamas negotiators convened to discuss a response to a U.S. offer was on September 9. Trump sent Hamas a 100-word summary of a purported ceasefire plan via regional mediators. As lead negotiator Khalil Al-Hayya and other senior officials gathered in Hamas’s offices in Doha to discuss it, Israeli warplanes carried out a series of airstrikes intended to assassinate them. While Al-Hayya and the other leaders survived, Al-Hayya’s son and four Hamas office workers were killed and Al-Hayya’s wife, daughter-in-law and grandchildren were all wounded. A Qatari security officer was also killed.

Multiple Hamas sources told Drop Site that, following the attack, several senior Hamas leaders in Qatar, including Al-Hayya, were moved to secure locations and restrictions were placed on their use of phones and other electronic devices. Qatar, the sources said, told Hamas officials the measures were necessary because there was still an active threat against them. This severely impaired the ability of the movement’s leaders to communicate with each other and with resistance commanders on the ground in Gaza. “In the first three weeks following the assassination operation, there were exceptional security measures for the leaders who were targeted or expected to be targeted,” Nazzal said, adding that since Trump’s proposal was delivered to Hamas on Monday, its leaders have been able to more freely congregate. “Movement and communications began with Qatari, Egyptian, and Turkish officials after we received Trump’s plan. That is why contacts have now resumed.”

In order for any ceasefire agreement Hamas signs to be valid, it would require the assent of the ground commanders from Qassam Brigades and Saraya al Quds, the armed wings of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, in Gaza. Nazzal said that shortly before the attempted assassination strike in Qatar, Hamas’s leadership inside Gaza authorized its external negotiators to make decisions on the terms of a deal. “I don’t believe there is any issue in stances between the military and political leadership,” Nazzal said. “I believe the issue now centers on deciding a position regarding the plan proposed by Trump.”

Nazzal joined Hamas soon after the group’s founding in 1987 and has held various positions over the ensuing decades, including representing the movement in Jordan and Syria and serving on its international council. In October 1997, he was among the senior Hamas officials who appeared publicly in Amman with the group’s founder and spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin after he was freed from an Israeli prison. Nazzal is an influential member of Hamas’s political bureau and was placed under sanctions by the U.S. government in 2024.

Whatever response Hamas submits to Trump would carry with it the endorsement of a range of Palestinian groups, Nazzal emphasized—not just those with armed resistance forces fighting in Gaza. “We believe this is a national issue that concerns the Palestinian people. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and some other factions are leading the military resistance against the occupation. However, there are many Palestinian parties that must be consulted,” he said. “We do not treat what is happening in the Gaza Strip as solely Hamas’s issue—rather, it concerns the entire Palestinian people. That is why we consult with all Palestinian factions to ensure that the position is a comprehensive and unified national stance.”

While most Palestinian parties and prominent political leaders have participated in these “national unity” consultations throughout the genocide, Fatah, the ruling political party of Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, has refused to participate. “We have continuously tried to extend a hand of cooperation and relationship,” said Nazzal. “Unfortunately, the position of the Palestinian Authority, specifically Abbas, has always been negative.”

Mohammad Nazzal, right, speaks to journalists in Amman, Jordan on October 6, 1997. To his left is Hamas founder and spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin who was assassinated by Israel in 2004. Behind them are senior Hamas leaders Mousa Abu Marzouk, Khaled Meshaal, and Ibrahim Ghosheh. Photo by JAMAL NASRALLAH/AFP via Getty Images.

The Deception Game

In the initial meetings Tuesday in Doha, regional mediators from Qatar and Egypt, as well as officials from Turkey, told Hamas that the Palestinian side should state its positions and objections to the Trump outline, Nazzal said. “It is our right to express these observations. Therefore, regardless of the American position on our stance, we cannot give a blank check or sign off blindly on an agreement we were not part of—whether the United States accepts that or not,” Nazzal said. The mediators “expressed an understanding that Hamas has the right to voice its observations, especially since it was not involved in the dialogue between the Americans and the Israelis.”

The framework was drafted in coordination with Netanyahu’s top adviser, Ron Dermer, and spearheaded by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. Kushner, who reportedly took the lead in shoring up Arab support, is often touted by Trump as the mastermind of the so-called Abraham Accord “normalization” agreements with Israel. Kushner has extensive business dealings in Gulf countries and Israel and his investment firm, Affinity Partners, is backed by billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.

The Trump proposal includes plans for “investment proposals and exciting development ideas” in Gaza to be managed by an “international transitional body” that would effectively take control of the Strip. During his appearance alongside Netanyahu on Monday, Trump called Gaza “the most magnificent piece of land in many ways in the Middle East.” Asked about whether Kushner’s business interests represent a conflict of interest, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt denounced the suggestion as “frankly despicable.”

Since Trump unveiled his plan on Monday, officials from several Arab and other Muslim states implied they were blindsided by Trump when he stepped to the podium with Netanyahu and claimed the plan he outlined had their full support. Publicly, these nations offered words of praise for Trump’s “sincere efforts to end the war in Gaza” but did not explicitly endorse his 20-point plan.

Some of them have claimed that the final text distributed by the White House was markedly different from drafts those countries were shown and to which they offered their feedback and ultimate endorsement. Pakistan’s foreign minister Ishaq Dar said, “This is not our document,” adding that the outline released by Trump and Netanyahu should be viewed as “an announcement from their side.”

After Arab and Muslim countries had indicated last week that they would support Trump’s plan, Trump allowed Netanyahu and Dermer to make significant changes to the terms, in some cases removing or substantively altering items that those nations had understood would be in the document. “Netanyahu managed to secure noteworthy changes following a pair of hours-long meetings” with Kushner and Witkoff last week, according to the Times of Israel. These “significant 11th-hour changes” included making Israeli troop withdrawals contingent upon Hamas’s disarmament. Some changes were reportedly made inside the White House moments before Trump and Netanyahu took the stage to announce the plan. “Officials from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Turkey were furious over the changes,” reported Axios. “The Qataris even tried to convince the Trump administration not to release the detailed plan on Monday due to those objections.”

“These [Muslim] countries have fallen into a deception, and some of them have informed us of this,” Nazzal said. “The deception lies in the fact that what was agreed upon is not the same as what was announced. This is a major political scandal,” he added. “As the world’s greatest superpower, it is disgraceful for [the United States] to engage in deceiving countries that are considered its allies.”

A growing number of Muslim nations are now suggesting that the terms, as published, need to be revisited, though they are choosing their words carefully. Egyptian foreign minister Badr Abdel Aaty said Trump’s plan “contains many positive elements,” but added, “there are also elements that require extensive discussion and, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details. Therefore, these issues must be discussed in depth in order to reach a consensus on them, especially with regard to implementation on the ground.”

On Tuesday, Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani praised aspects of Trump’s plan, saying it addressed the most urgent issues, namely a ceasefire, but added that there were “practical and implementation challenges” to be worked out through negotiations. This, he said, “is primarily the work of the Palestinian side with the Israeli side, but also as a broader supporting international community, there must be a clear and legal framework for this matter, which of course will be at the UN Security Council.”

Whether Trump would now entertain new language or amendments proposed by Qatar, Egypt and other nations involved with the negotiations, let alone Hamas, is an open question.

Since Monday, officials from Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian groups have universally denounced the plan as a naked ploy by Israel to attempt to achieve through this proposal what it has failed to win on the battlefield.

Ziyad al-Nakhalah, the secretary general of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), the second largest armed resistance group in Gaza, called the proposal “a recipe for continued aggression against the Palestinian people,” saying, “we consider the American-Israeli announcement a recipe for igniting the region.”

The Trump plan, if accepted by Hamas as written, would have far reaching ramifications for the cause of Palestinian self-determination, not just in Gaza.

Mohammed Al-Hindi, the chief political negotiator for PIJ, said Wednesday evening that within Trump’s proposal there are two different tracks that Palestinian negotiators need to separate. The first addresses the active war on the ground and terms for a ceasefire, exchange of captives, and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip. These terms, he said, Hamas and PIJ have the authority to negotiate because they are fighting the war. “The Palestinian resistance needs to introduce some amendments on this point that concerns the resistance, because from the beginning we said there is no objection from the resistance to a comprehensive deal that includes the release of all prisoners in the hands of the resistance in exchange for stopping the aggression and withdrawal,” Al-Hindi said in an interview with Al-Araby television. Among the issues he said must be negotiated are guarantees that Israel would fully withdraw its forces and not resume the genocide, as well as the formulas for the freeing of Palestinians held captive by Israel.

The second track of Trump’s proposal, he said, introduces sweeping concepts that would forever alter the course of the fight for Palestinian statehood and self-determination. Al-Hindi said that Hamas and PIJ do not have the exclusive mandate to make agreements on behalf of all Palestinians. “As for the general national issues, they concern the entire Palestinian homeland. There is no resistance, no Hamas, no Jihad, no one authorized to speak alone about the Palestinian national project,” Al-Hindi said. “For example, the day after, the future of governance in Gaza and the future of the West Bank—these concern every Palestinian and we are not authorized to decide them alone. They require broader consultations. What is in the paper is an assault on the Palestinian national liberation project: It amounts to an American mandate in favor of Israel.”

Regarding Gaza specifically, Trump’s plan would permit Israeli forces to remain entrenched inside the Strip indefinitely and link the delivery of food, medicine and life essentials to a nebulous system of verifying the disarmament of Palestinian resistance groups. It would also impose a foreign authority to oversee the running of Gaza, backed by the deployment of an international armed force. The plan would also require that Hamas release all Israeli captives held in Gaza before any Palestinians would be freed. The proposal offers no mechanism to ensure Israel complies with the agreement and Netanyahu said Monday that Israel has no intention of entirely withdrawing from Gaza.

While officials from Hamas and other groups have made clear their opposition to the terms within the plan, none of these sentiments yet represent an official response. Hamas is under tremendous pressure from inside Gaza to negotiate an end to the genocide, relentless bombings, forced displacements and the mass starvation campaign. Several Hamas officials have told Drop Site over the past several months that the group understands that whatever decisions are made in an effort to end the genocide will impact not just Hamas, but the very future of the broader Palestinian cause.

Nazzal said that Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza and its attacks against nations across the region over the past two years should also serve as an ominous warning to all Arab nations. “We, as the Palestinian people, part of the Arab and Islamic region, must coexist with the Arab and Islamic reality. We must deepen our ties with the Arab regimes, maintain communication with them, and work to convince them that the Zionist project poses a danger to them,” he said.

Nazzal cited comments made by Netanyahu in an Israeli TV interview in August where Netanyahu said he was on a “historic and spiritual mission” and felt “very much” connected to the concept of a Greater Israel and the Promised Land.

“Netanyahu proposed the Greater Israel project, and this project is dangerous. By Greater Israel, he means Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Look at the ongoing aggression against Syria, despite the fact that Syria has done nothing since the new regime came to power. Look at the aggression against Lebanon,” Nazzal added. “The Zionist project is a danger not only to the Palestinians but to the entire region. This requires the Arab regimes to change their policies, to view the Zionist project with suspicion and concern, and to take practical measures to confront this project.”