THE ordeal of the people of Gaza has entered a new phase. President Donald Trump has presented a formula for a ceasefire, and in the coming days there may be progress on this proposal.
The pressing questions now are: Is this formula against Hamas, or against the people of Palestine themselves? Will it render Hamas’s sacrifices meaningless? Does supporting this formula amount to a betrayal of the Palestinian cause? Or is rejecting it the only true requirement of loyalty to the land of Palestine?
These are the questions that weigh heavily on every thinking heart today, and they are not only being raised emotionally but in many minds the verdict has already been reached. After the devastation Gaza has suffered, such emotions are natural and inevitable. Yet beyond this emotional plane there exists another level of understanding — one where wise and prudent minds evaluate events calmly, weighing their strengths and weaknesses. Despite the enormity of the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza — indeed, the outright assault on humanity — it is necessary to examine President Trump’s formula coolly. To examine calmly does not mean to endorse; rather, it means to understand clearly what is wrong and what is right in it.
At first glance, the formula does not appear beneficial for Hamas. It plainly aims to render Gaza a demilitarized zone. If Hamas agrees to it, its members are promised amnesty; if not, exile will be their fate. In current circumstances, however, where would they go in exile? No country seems willing or able to host them. In essence, Hamas has no alternative option, and practically speaking this would mean the dissolution of its existence. The second dimension of this formula is different. On its surface, it appears to be a two-sided deal. If Hamas releases Israeli hostages under this plan, Israel in return will release a far greater number of Palestinian prisoners, both men and women, many of whom have been held for years.
The third aspect is also noteworthy. The available evidence suggests that this formula was shaped during President Trump’s consultations with Muslim leaders at the United Nations General Assembly. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey was the first to publicly express satisfaction after these discussions, and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif of Pakistan also welcomed it, calling the proposal encouraging. This suggests that the formula emerged after consultation with the leadership of the Muslim world.
But this raises another question: was Hamas itself consulted in this process? This is not an easy task, but governments do possess channels for such communication, and in critical matters they usually find ways to consult. Even if, hypothetically, Hamas was not directly consulted, it is implausible to assume that Pakistan’s leadership would ever endorse an arrangement that ran counter to the interests of Palestine and Gaza. The same reasoning applies to President Erdogan of Turkey. Likewise, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other Muslim nations are unlikely to support a course of action that undermines Palestinian interests. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the capable and farsighted leadership of the Muslim world has taken into account both the mood of their publics and the welfare of Palestine before giving their consent.
One more strategic development must be considered alongside this formula: the recent defense pact between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which has been welcomed across the Muslim world, including by Iran. This indicates that before pushing Israel toward a ceasefire, a shift in the regional balance of power was already engineered. Following the Saudi-Pakistan pact, other Muslim countries expressed interest in joining this alignment. This shows that Trump’s formula is not an isolated move but comes after detailed prior consultations at multiple levels, with a degree of consensus across the Muslim world. If the formula is successfully implemented, the next question is: what future awaits Gaza, Palestine, and Hamas? In my view, this is the most vital question of all.
A careful reading of the Trump formula makes clear that it implicitly recognizes the Palestinian right to struggle — provided that struggle is political and nonviolent. If indeed the formula secures the right of Palestinians to continue their cause through political struggle, then Palestine may be entering the same historical phase that the Indian subcontinent entered after the failed uprising of 1857: a phase of successful political struggle.
In the 20th century, nearly all nations that gained independence did so on this subcontinental model — or, more precisely, on the Pakistani model. The essence of this model lies in the fact that truth and justice stand on one side, while brute force and expediency stand on the other. Through political struggle, the oppressed party first secures moral superiority, and then, step by step, reaches its ultimate destination: freedom.
—This writer is former advisor to the President of Pakistan, author & mass media theorist.
(farooq.adilbhuta@gmail,com)
