IN a recent write-up, published in a section of media, Dr. Farooq Adil examined President Donald Trump’s proposed formula for a ceasefire in Gaza with thoughtful balance.
His reflections raise crucial questions: is the formula aimed at Hamas alone, or does it risk undermining the entire Palestinian cause? Does supporting it equate to a betrayal of the sacrifices made or could it open a path toward a different kind of struggle?
These questions lie at the heart of Palestine’s current ordeal. For decades, the people of Gaza have faced relentless aggression, their rights systematically denied while the international community has largely remained silent. Now, with Trump’s formula suggesting a demilitarized Gaza and amnesty for Hamas members in exchange for hostages, the Palestinian leadership and their supporters face difficult choices. On the surface, the plan seems designed to weaken Hamas, yet it also promises prisoner exchanges and hints at broader recognition of Palestinian political struggle.
Dr. Adil points out that this proposal did not emerge in isolation. It was reportedly shaped through consultations with Muslim leaders during the United Nations General Assembly. Leaders such as Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif expressed cautious approval, calling the initiative encouraging. Their stance suggests that at least some in the Muslim world view it as a possible step toward easing Gaza’s suffering, though not without deep reservations. The recent defence pact between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, welcomed across the Muslim world, also adds weight to the notion that regional power alignments are shifting in preparation for a political settlement.
Yet, profound skepticism remains. Israel has consistently rejected UN resolutions and pursued its vision of “Greater Israel,” with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly defying international law while overseeing policies that amount to ethnic cleansing. Given this history, can Palestinians afford to place their trust in an arrangement backed by Washington and Tel Aviv? Dr. Adil suggests that while Muslim governments may have considered public opinion and Palestinian welfare in their endorsement, the absence of direct consultation with Hamas raises questions of legitimacy.
The deeper challenge is whether Palestinians can transition from armed resistance to sustained political struggle without losing the essence of their cause. Dr. Adil draws a compelling historical parallel with the Indian subcontinent after 1857, when military defeat gave rise to a long, patient political campaign that eventually secured independence. If Trump’s formula does indeed guarantee space for nonviolent political struggle, Palestine may enter a similar historical phase, where moral authority outweighs brute force over time.
Still, the dangers are real. To disarm Hamas without robust guarantees of protection would expose Palestinians to further massacres, as past experience has shown. Muslim countries, therefore, must insist on international or regional forces to safeguard civilians if disarmament is pursued. Otherwise, the formula risks becoming a tool for further subjugation rather than liberation.
In the end, the path to peace cannot rest solely on external proposals. It requires genuine recognition of Palestinian rights, implementation of UN resolutions and a commitment by the Muslim world to back words with decisive action. Until then, the struggle continues — a struggle not just for land, but for dignity, justice and the survival of a people.
—The writer is a contributing columnist, based in New York.
