US envoy Steve Witkoff and American Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee visited Gaza to inspect aid distribution centers amid discussions of new American plans to improve the flow of humanitarian assistance, following the apparent failure of previously implemented measures.
Prior to his visit, American officials stressed that Witkoff’s meeting with Netanyahu had been positive and constructive, particularly regarding efforts to increase aid. At the same time, President Trump reiterated his vision for a final solution for Gaza. From his perspective, this means the surrender of Hamas, while providing political cover for the continuation and expansion of Israel’s military operations should Hamas refuse to comply.
Regarding the deal developed by Witkoff and negotiated over several months, it now appears that Washington and Tel Aviv have shifted toward a new framework. Instead of pursuing a partial deal, they now favor a comprehensive deal under which both living and deceased hostages would be returned to Israel. For the Americans, this would constitute the end of the war—but only if Hamas accepts, which would effectively mean surrender. If Hamas rejects the new terms, the war is expected to continue and even expand until the American and Israeli goal of what they describe as “absolute victory” is achieved.
President Trump, through this show visit to Gaza by Witkoff and Huckabee, performs a public relations game. His intention is to claim innocence by deflecting blame for the mass starvation in Gaza—which has drawn international outrage and condemnation—while simultaneously supplying Netanyahu with the support necessary to pursue total victory. In this framing, Hamas is cast as solely responsible for the famine because it refuses to surrender—a narrative that conveniently masks Israel’s responsibility for the humanitarian catastrophe. This position also works to manufacture consent for Israel’s annexation project in Gaza, which Netanyahu has claimed President Trump understands.
In essence, this is the true American position—evident both in its explicit statements and in what lies between the lines of its stated position. The urgent question now is: how will Hamas respond to this new reality? Will it confront the American‑Israeli framing of the famine? Will it accept the shift from a partial agreement to a comprehensive one? Its response cannot rest solely on the justice of resisting Israeli aggression and US support for it, but must include a sober assessment of its ability to secure famine relief, sustain armed resistance, and prepare for the political and humanitarian challenges in the aftermath of the conflict.
