Dr. Hussein Al-Deek: Trump’s retreat from his hostile statements regarding Gaza reflects his failure to use what is known as “brinkmanship” diplomacy

Dr. Tamara Haddad: The retreat that appeared in Trump’s statements is tactical because implementing the first phase of the deal is in Israel’s interest

Sulaiman Basharat: Trump may have achieved his main goals of shocking the concerned parties and forcing them to modify their policies

Dr. Aql Salah: The major crisis is that Trump, as a mediator and guarantor of the agreement, encouraged Netanyahu to violate it, and this is a dangerous precedent in the role of international mediators.

Dr. Raed Al-Dabai: Trump was subjected to great pressure from his advisors, allies and partners, which prompted him to adopt a more cautious and coordinated stance with Israel

Sari Samour: Trump relies on maximum bargaining and tends to escalate, but retreats to diplomacy whenever he faces real resistance to his proposals

US President Donald Trump's retraction of his statements regarding the threat to the Gaza Strip raises questions about whether this retraction means a failure in implementing his policies, or is it merely a tactic aimed at achieving gains for Israel.

In separate interviews with “I,” writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors believe that Trump’s retreat is not a strategic change, but a tactical one, and that Trump is still committed to implementing plans that could lead to fundamental changes in the Palestinian scene. They point out that the United States may withdraw from its role as a direct mediator in the negotiations, allowing Israel the freedom to make decisions that have a greater impact on the future of the Strip.

Writers, analysts, specialists and university professors confirm that political pressure from Arab countries and the Palestinian people had a major impact on changing the American position, which led to Trump backing down from his exaggerated threats, and that this change reflects the failure of the “brinkmanship diplomacy” approach that Trump relied on to pressure the concerned parties to achieve his goals.

They point out that fears are growing that Trump's statements may be merely a tool to impose a new political reality in Gaza, as Trump works to increase pressure on the Palestinian resistance to make concessions that may lead to changes in the political and military landscape of the region.

Trump backed down from his threats due to the unified Arab position

The writer and political analyst specializing in Israeli affairs, Dr. Hussein Al-Deek, believes that US President Donald Trump’s retreat from his threats regarding the Gaza Strip came as a result of the crystallization of a unified Arab position, stressing that the collective political will of Arab governments and peoples is capable of breaking American pressures and positions.

Al-Deek explains that the United States, despite its arrogance, is not an inevitable fate, and its policies can be confronted and thwarted if there is a firm and clear Arab position.

Al-Deek points out that Trump's retreat from his hostile statements regarding Gaza reflects his failure to use what is known as "brinkmanship" diplomacy, which is based on applying intense pressure to achieve political goals.

Al-Deek explains that this approach did not succeed in the face of the Arab position’s firmness in rejecting his statements, which confirmed to the world that Trump is a controversial and populist figure, and often issues narcissistic statements that cannot be implemented.

Regarding the issue of Israeli prisoners and detainees in the Gaza Strip, Al-Deek confirms that Hamas has shown a clear commitment to the signed agreement, which stipulates the release of three prisoners per week according to the specified plan, noting that any breach of this agreement came from the Israeli side with American support.

Al-Deek points out that the Israeli occupation did not adhere to the humanitarian aspect of the agreement, as it prevented the entry of equipment necessary to remove the rubble, and did not allow the entry of the agreed-upon mobile homes and tents.

Al-Deek confirms that Israel's approval of the deal came under great internal pressure, as Benjamin Netanyahu's government faces pressure from the Haredi parties and the Israeli street, in addition to the position of the military establishment, which has exhausted its goals in Gaza, which prompted Netanyahu to move forward with the agreement despite his hesitation.

Regarding the expected scenarios for the future of the agreement, Al-Deek explains that there are four possible scenarios: either completing the stages of the deal as planned, although this scenario seems weak due to Netanyahu’s procrastination in completing the first stage, especially since the second stage of negotiations has not yet begun, and there are less than two weeks left until the end of the first stage.

As for the second scenario, according to Al-Deek, it is related to the tour of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the Middle East, where he visited Tel Aviv, then a number of Arab countries, to discuss new arrangements aimed at expanding and extending the first phase of the agreement.

Al-Deek explains that this scenario has the support of Netanyahu, who convinced the Americans of it, but its success depends on Hamas’s position and the extent of Israel’s commitment to implementing the initial agreement.

Al-Deek points out that the third scenario is linked to the Arab summit scheduled to be held in Cairo on the 27th of this month.

Al-Deek points out that media reports speak of an Egyptian-Arab initiative regarding the management of the Gaza Strip, which includes the management of the Strip through Palestinian experts and technicians under Arab and international supervision, with the exclusion of Hamas from governance.

Al-Deek believes that this scenario is likely, given the Palestinian and Arab rejection of the plan to displace the people of Gaza, and the strong Israeli opposition to the return of the Palestinian Authority to the Strip.

Regarding the fourth scenario, according to Al-Deek, it is based on the return of military operations in the Gaza Strip after the end of the first phase of the agreement.

Al-Deek considers this scenario weak, justifying it by saying that the Trump administration views the region from the perspective of trade deals, not wars, and that the resumption of war will hinder the investment plans desired by the US administration, especially from the Gulf states.

Al-Deek points out that the upcoming meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Saudi Arabia may contribute to strengthening US-Arab understandings and reduce the chances of military escalation.

Al-Deek stresses that the unified Arab position and regional understandings play a pivotal role in confronting American and Israeli policies, which makes Arab unity a key tool for protecting national and regional interests in the coming stage.

Trump has not backed down from his initial plans to displace the Gazans

Writer and political researcher Dr. Tamara Haddad confirms that US President Donald Trump has not backed down from his initial plans regarding the forced displacement of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, but rather he is still determined to implement these plans.

Haddad points out that Trump has handed over the final decision to implement this deal to Israel, considering that the United States of America will remain part of ensuring the implementation of the agreements related to Gaza, but it is retreating from its role as a primary decision-maker. Therefore, Israel will have the freedom to make the final decisions regarding the deal, which reflects the complete intersection between Trump and the thinking of the Israeli government, which seeks to release the largest possible number of Israeli prisoners.

Haddad explains that the retreat that appeared in Trump's statements is not a strategic retreat, but rather a tactical one, as implementing the first phase of the deal, which includes releasing the prisoners, is in Israel's interest.

Haddad points out that this phase may extend for a longer period than expected, as Israel seeks to obtain the largest possible number of hostages, which will guarantee it a tool of pressure on the Palestinian side.

Haddad believes that the equation imposed in the first phase of the deal is a purely humanitarian equation, whereby humanitarian aid and residential caravans are brought in in exchange for the release of the Israeli hostages. Therefore, any progress towards the second or third phases of the deal will only be made under specific conditions set by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Among these conditions is the demand to remove senior Hamas leaders from the Gaza Strip, in addition to ensuring that the Strip does not pose a future threat to Israeli national security.

Haddad points out that Israel does not want to enter the second and third stages of the deal at the present time, due to the security and economic obligations that may result from them, such as a complete withdrawal from Gaza and reconstruction.

Haddad points out that Israel does not want to carry out the reconstruction process quickly, as it believes that the Palestinian citizen may remain on his land even if the reconstruction is temporary, which strengthens his steadfastness.

Haddad believes that the main goal of the American and Israeli escalation is to impose a new reality in Gaza, with a focus on the humanitarian equation in exchange for releasing the hostages.

On the Arab level, Haddad stresses that there is an urgent need for a coordinated Arab plan to confront the Israeli and American plans related to displacement.

Haddad believes that the Arab plan may focus on removing Hamas from the political scene to remove pretexts from Israel and the United States of America, while stressing the necessity for this plan to be acceptable to Palestine, regionally and internationally.

Haddad explains that the situation in Gaza may lead to extending the first phase of the deal or to forming a transitional phase similar to the first phase, in an attempt by the Israeli and American parties to put more pressure on Hamas through the worsening humanitarian situation.

Haddad stresses that the political future in Gaza remains unclear, and that the situation requires urgent Arab coordination to confront the challenges facing the Palestinian cause.

Arab and regional movements have begun to present alternatives and plans.

Writer and political analyst Suleiman Basharat believes that Trump's high-profile statements regarding Gaza carry a primary goal of raising the bar in shocking the concerned parties with the aim of re-arranging priorities in line with the Israeli-American vision for the region.

According to Basharat, Trump wanted through these statements to introduce new variables into the ongoing conflict over Gaza, especially with regard to the future of the Strip after the war, and to restore the balance between the active forces in the region. His open threat to open the “gates of hell,” as he described it, and his confirmation of the possibility of disrupting the agreements if their path was not adhered to, were a pressure tool to force the parties to agree with Washington’s vision.

Basharat believes that the second goal of this escalation is to activate the populist discourse that resonates with the hardline Israeli right, which enhances the compatibility between the American and Israeli positions. In doing so, Trump wanted to make the Israeli position more in line with the American vision, which explains the escalation of the discourse and then the retreat from it after a short period.

With the US retracting some statements, Basharat believes that Trump may have achieved his main goals, which were to shock the concerned parties and force them to modify their policies, and thus the cards began to be rearranged according to the American vision.

Basharat points out that there are Arab and regional movements that have begun to present alternatives and plans to deal with the future situation in Gaza, which reflects the extent of the impact of American statements in igniting new dynamics in the region.

Basharat believes that it is very difficult for Trump to carry out his threats, as the Palestinians in Gaza have lost everything, and they have nothing to lose if they decide to reject what the United States is proposing. Moreover, the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Strip has made it difficult for America to appear weak in the face of the destruction left by the war.

Basharat believes that the Palestinian resistance has proven its ability to absorb American and Israeli pressure, as it has dealt with events cautiously and realistically in order to avoid giving Israel or Trump a pretext to resume war or escalation.

According to Basharat, the resistance realizes that matters are no longer just improvised reactions, but have become part of precise political calculations that include Palestinian, international, and regional dimensions.

Basharat believes that the current situation is still ambiguous, and there is no real vision among the concerned parties about how to deal with Gaza after the war. Despite the passage of more than 15 months since the war, the parties have not reached final solutions regarding the political future of the Strip. However, there are visions and perceptions being discussed by these parties, but they will not be effective unless a consensus is reached between all parties.

Basharat explains that the most realistic scenario for the next stage indicates that there is a kind of balance between the Palestinian resistance and Israel, with the support of the United States. In this scenario, any proposed agreement will be an agreement between the Palestinian resistance and the international parties.

The other scenario, according to Basharat, is the crazy scenario in which Israel, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, may seek to exploit the hesitant American position to pressure other parties to achieve its political goals.

Basharat believes that the situation in the Gaza Strip will remain in a state of continuous instability, as long as the existing agreements will not be stable or easily enforceable, which makes them vulnerable to manipulation by the various parties and the introduction of changes that may empty the agreements of their content. Consequently, the Palestinian situation in Gaza will remain in a state of political escalation, until real agreements are reached that guarantee long-term stability.

Trump from mediator to direct party in pressure

Writer and political researcher Dr. Aql Salah believes that US President Donald Trump tried through his threatening statements to exert intense pressure on the resistance to accept the conditions of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and despite that, Trump was aware that the resistance would not submit to these threats.

Salah points out that Trump also put pressure on Qatari and Egyptian mediators to influence the resistance, which led to the implementation of the sixth installment of the deal, but Israel reneged on its commitments and refused to allow aid into Gaza after that.

Salah asserts that the major crisis lies in the fact that Trump, who is supposed to be the mediator and guarantor of the agreement, is the one who encouraged Netanyahu to violate it, which represents a dangerous precedent in the role of international mediators, through this absolute support for Israel. Trump seeks to save Netanyahu from bearing the responsibility for disrupting the agreement and to place the responsibility on the resistance instead.

Salah points to Trump's shift from the role of mediator to a direct party in pressuring the resistance, with the aim of reducing its political and field achievements.

Salah explains that Israel yielded to the sixth batch due to increasing pressure from the Israeli street and the Trump administration, as Netanyahu seeks to achieve gains through negotiations that he did not achieve through war.

Salah expects the US pressure on the resistance to continue to push it towards a settlement that will grant Netanyahu a political achievement that will preserve the cohesion of his government coalition and provide a moral victory for Israel.

Salah warns that the seventh installment of the deal is at risk of being disrupted due to Israel’s refusal to allow in humanitarian aid, stressing that the resistance may refuse to complete the deal unless Israel abides by the terms of the agreement.

Salah believes that the next stage will be difficult, as its success is largely linked to the Israeli street’s movement to pressure its government.

Salah points out that the American arrangements for the post-war period in Gaza pose major challenges to the resistance, as it cannot rely on the role of mediators without clear guarantees to implement the agreed-upon humanitarian obligations.

Multiple angles to interpret Trump's threats

Dr. Raed Al-Dabai, head of the Political Science Department at An-Najah National University, believes that Trump’s retreat from his previous threats, which included “opening the gates of hell” if all Israeli hostages were not released by Saturday, can be interpreted from several angles.

Al-Dabai believes that the threats issued by Trump are in line with his populist and emotional personality. He is known for his escalatory and exaggerated style in his speeches, and thus his threats to Hamas were part of this approach that relies on shock and exaggeration in order to attract attention, without necessarily having a realistic plan to implement these threats.

Al-Dabai cites Trump’s previous experiences, where he made fiery statements and then retracted them when he discovered that they were not feasible or when he faced internal or external pressures. For example, during his first term in office, Trump issued threats against North Korea and China, but he later changed his positions after realizing that these threats could lead to counterproductive results.

Al-Dabai believes that Trump was subjected to great pressure from his advisors in the US administration, in addition to international pressure from allies and partners in the region, especially in the context of mediating the exchange deal, which prompted him to adopt a more cautious and coordinated position with Israel.

Al-Dabai believes that Trump was seeking to present himself as a firefighter for the world’s fires, especially with regard to the Palestinian file, as he had previously succeeded in stopping the ceasefire. Hence, the unraveling of things at this time, before the return of the detainees, contradicts the image he wants to establish about himself.

Al-Dabai believes that Israel, in contrast, chose to put its national interests above any other consideration, which explains its agreement to complete the prisoner exchange deal despite Trump’s threats.

Al-Dabai believes that this Israeli position reflects the effectiveness of indirect negotiations and a genuine desire to recover the detainees, which may be the result of internal pressure from the families of the hostages and from Israeli public opinion.

As for future scenarios, Al-Dabai believes that Hamas and Islamic Jihad have prisoners, especially those who are still alive, and that the second phase of the deal, which includes the release of intelligence officers, may put Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu under great pressure.

Al-Dabai believes that Netanyahu will make an effort to extend the first phase of the deal in order to avoid discussing the issue of stopping the war, which could affect the stability of his government coalition, but Al-Dabai points out that, in the end, Netanyahu will be forced to discuss the second phase of the deal, which includes a comprehensive ceasefire.

Regarding Netanyahu's position on stopping the war, Al-Dabai believes that the Israeli Prime Minister does not want a comprehensive ceasefire, because it means his exit from the governmental and political scene, but at the same time he does not have many options due to the increasing pressures from within and without.

According to Al-Dabai, the features of the second phase of the deal will be determined by a set of data and developments, including the position of the US administration, the pressure it may exert on Israel, in addition to developments in the military field.

He points out that Netanyahu is not the only player who decides under these circumstances, but will depend in the future on the balance of power at home and abroad to determine his directions.

Trump's personality is governed by a merchant's mentality

Writer and political analyst Sari Samour believes that US President Donald Trump's personality is governed by a merchant's mentality, as he is accustomed to making very high demands in order to obtain negotiating gains, which is reflected in his behavior towards Gaza.

Samour points out that this approach is derived from Trump's background in the real estate sector, where he relies on maximum bargaining to achieve his goals, despite the presence of American institutions that limit his decisions.

Trump tends to escalate, but retreats to diplomacy when he encounters real resistance to his proposals, Samour explains, citing his shift in positions on Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, where he moved from threats to rapprochement after realizing their toughness.

Regarding the Israeli scene, Samour points out that there are undeclared arrangements between Washington and Tel Aviv that go beyond Trump's public statements, but he believes that the United States, at this stage, will not provide financial and military support to Israel with the same generosity that President Joe Biden has provided.

Samour explains that Israel seeks to resume the war in Gaza and cancel the second phase of the agreement or merge it according to its own terms, continuing to create crises to achieve its goals.

Samour warns of a catastrophic scenario in which Arab countries are pushed to offer bad solutions out of fear of Trump’s threats to displace the people of Gaza, as this fear may lead to the crystallization of ill-considered Arab plans that aim only to thwart the displacement plan.

Samour points out that there is a media reading that sees Trump’s statements as aiming to restore the image of the Arab regimes that received widespread criticism due to their silence during the events in Gaza, but he does not tend towards this opinion. Rather, he believes that Trump’s goal is to push the Arabs to formulate a political plan that may not include complete displacement, but rather partial displacement that carries dangerous consequences.

Sammour stresses the importance of Arab caution against being swept away by any ill-considered plans, emphasizing that the stage requires deep political awareness to confront dangerous scenarios of circumventing the Palestinian cause.