Trump Threatens to “Go In and Kill” Hamas, Escalating Pressure on Ceasefire

Editor
5 Min Read
Hamas executions 1

Ahmed Kamel – Egypt Daily News

President Donald Trump sharply escalated his rhetoric toward Hamas on Thursday, warning that the militant group would face lethal action if it continued killing Palestinians in Gaza a statement that injects fresh uncertainty into a fragile ceasefire negotiated earlier this week.

“If Hamas continues to kill people in Gaza, which was not the Deal, we will have no choice but to go in and kill them,” the president wrote on Truth Social, framing the warning as a response to reports that armed elements inside Gaza have used the truce to reassert control and target Palestinians accused of collaborating with Israel. Trump followed the post with remarks in the Oval Office clarifying that he did not expect U.S. forces to lead any renewed offensive. “It’s not going to be us, we won’t have to,” he said, adding that forces “very close, very nearby” could intervene “under our auspices.”

The comments mark a dramatic pivot from the upbeat tone the president struck just days earlier, when he hailed the ceasefire as effectively ending the conflict and expressed optimism that the region would quiet. In the immediate aftermath of the deal he announced, Trump declared the war “over” and initially appeared tolerant of internal crackdowns in Gaza, saying Tuesday that the removal of “a couple of gangs” didn’t trouble him.

But as evidence mounted that factions inside Gaza had launched violent reprisals including reportedly targeting Palestinians accused of collaboration the president adopted a tougher posture. He told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Wednesday that the war could resume “as soon as I say the word,” and warned that Hamas would ultimately have to be disarmed “or we will disarm them.”

The switch in tone reflects the delicate balancing act Washington faces: trying to preserve an uneasy ceasefire while responding to both Israeli concerns and disturbing reports of continued bloodshed among Palestinians under Hamas’ control. Israeli officials have publicly accused Hamas of violating parts of the agreement, particularly over the slow return of deceased hostages. In a terse Oval Office exchange after a call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said he expected Hamas to honor its commitments and warned, “If they don’t behave, we’ll take care of it.”

Legal and operational questions hang over the president’s threat. Trump insisted U.S. forces would not be the ones to “go in and kill” and suggested that regional actors or allies close to the conflict would carry out any punitive action with American backing. That scenario raises complex diplomatic, intelligence and military coordination issues and leaves open the possibility of deeper U.S. involvement, even if not through frontline ground troops.

Analysts say the president’s rhetoric could have several effects: it may bolster pressure on Hamas to comply with terms of the deal, reassure Israeli leaders frustrated by continued violence, and placate domestic audiences demanding decisive action. Conversely, the threat risks inflaming tensions on the ground by signaling that the ceasefire is conditional and reversible at a political leader’s discretion.

The rapid shift also underscores how fragile ceasefires can be in conflicts where local power vacuums are quickly contested. Multiple accounts since the deal was signed have described armed groups in Gaza moving to consolidate control, sometimes by targeting rival factions or those suspected of cooperation with Israel. Humanitarian actors and rights groups have warned that such reprisals imperil civilians and undermine efforts to stabilize the territory and deliver aid.

Trump’s mixed messaging at times conciliatory, at times threatening comes as negotiators work to formalize a more durable end to hostilities. Whether his warning will prompt Hamas to change its behavior or instead provoke a fresh round of violence remains uncertain. For now, the United States appears to be staking a posture that blends diplomatic pressure with veiled support for forceful regional responses, leaving the future of the ceasefire precarious as events on the ground continue to unfold.

Share This Article