The air in Washington D.C. was thick with anticipation as President Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel converged at the White House for crucial discussions. At the heart of their agenda were the latest U.S.-backed proposals aimed at shaping a post-war Gaza. This high-stakes meeting unfolded against a backdrop of escalating conflict and persistent diplomatic challenges.
President Trump, a long-standing supporter of Israel, has recently expressed a growing impatience with the protracted war. He made it clear that he would not tolerate Israel’s annexation of parts of the occupied West Bank, a stance that added another layer of complexity to the already delicate negotiations. Historically, Prime Minister Netanyahu has often leaned towards a hardline approach, frequently rejecting compromises in favor of pressing forward with military actions against Hamas. Adding to the friction, Hamas leaders publicly stated they had not been consulted on the newest ceasefire proposals, further highlighting the deep divide between the warring parties.
The urgency of these talks was amplified by the desperate pleas of Israeli hostage families. Many continue to hold onto hope that this high-level meeting could pave the way for the immediate release of their loved ones. Out of over 200 individuals seized in the 2023 Hamas-led attack, approximately 20 are still believed to be alive. These families are imploring President Trump to exert pressure on Netanyahu to accept a deal, fearing that ongoing Israeli military operations in Gaza City could tragically claim the lives of the remaining captives. Ilana Gritzewsky, a former hostage whose partner, Matan, remains imprisoned, powerfully articulated this sentiment: “President Trump, you have the power to end the war and bring all the hostages home.”
A significant point of contention revolves around the future governance of Gaza, particularly the potential involvement of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The PA currently governs parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank and views itself as the rightful government for a future Palestinian state. Established in 1994 through the Oslo Accords, it was initially conceived as a temporary administration leading towards an independent Palestinian state. While the PA cooperates with Israel on security, their relations have been strained. Mahmoud Abbas, 89, has served as the PA’s president since 2005, despite no national elections since 2006. His leadership has drawn criticism for alleged corruption and authoritarianism, with recent polls indicating that most Palestinians desire his resignation. Israeli officials, including Netanyahu, have also accused the PA of mismanagement and fostering anti-Israel sentiment. Conversely, supporters argue that the Israeli occupation significantly hinders the PA’s effectiveness. Recent international recognition of Palestinian statehood by countries like France, Britain, and Canada, while largely symbolic, has further isolated Israel, which, along with the U.S., opposes such recognition, viewing it as a reward for Hamas. The deep-seated rivalry between Hamas and the PA, which saw Hamas violently oust the PA from Gaza in 2007, complicates matters. Abbas has condemned the 2023 Hamas attack and advocates for a modern state without an armed Hamas, a vision fiercely rejected by Hamas, which vows not to lay down its weapons as long as the “occupation continues.”
Several new proposals for ending the conflict and establishing post-war governance are on the table:
* The American Plan: Outlined by U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff, this plan suggests Hamas would return all living hostages and remains within 48 hours. It also proposes amnesty for Hamas members committed to peaceful coexistence and guaranteed safe passage out of Gaza for those wishing to leave. Crucially, it includes a commitment to a new dialogue on peaceful coexistence and a pledge that Israel would cease attacks on Qatar, a key mediator that had been targeted by Israeli airstrikes earlier in September. However, the plan’s success hinges on President Trump’s ability to persuade a resolute Netanyahu, who is determined to achieve Israel’s objectives.
* The Blair Plan: Advocated by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, this proposal envisions a “Gaza International Transitional Authority,” a U.N.-mandated administration backed by a multinational security force. This force would be tasked with maintaining security at border crossings, preventing the resurgence of armed groups, and disrupting weapons smuggling. The plan also includes “protected departure certificates” to reassure Palestinians of their right to return. While it doesn’t explicitly mention Hamas, it suggests a limited role for a reformed Palestinian Authority, acknowledging widespread criticisms of the body.
* The French-Saudi Plan (New York Declaration): Supported by 142 nations, this initiative calls for Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the deployment of a U.N.-organized international security force. Hamas would be prohibited from governing Gaza and would be required to surrender its weapons to the Palestinian Authority. Post-war governance would be managed by a transitional committee of technocrats operating under the PA’s umbrella, with elections to follow within a year of a ceasefire.
Despite these diplomatic efforts, significant obstacles persist. Israel and Hamas remain fundamentally at odds over core issues, and Israel’s ground offensive to take over Gaza City continues. Prime Minister Netanyahu faces considerable pressure from his right-wing coalition partners, including Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who insists on a permanent Israeli military presence in Gaza and no PA involvement. These “red lines” severely complicate the path to any accord acceptable to all parties.
Qatari officials are actively involved in Washington, striving to broker a deal between Israel and Hamas. Their continued mediation role, despite earlier Israeli strikes on Hamas leaders in their capital, underscores the critical need for a diplomatic channel in this enduring crisis. The path to peace in Gaza remains fraught with challenges, with leaders grappling to reconcile deeply opposing demands.