As President Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepared for their Monday meeting, the pressing question was whether Trump would finally compel Netanyahu to bring an end to the protracted conflict in Gaza.
Yet, the outcome saw Netanyahu emerge victorious, as Trump’s proposal largely aligned with Israel’s demands: an immediate release of hostages by Hamas and their disarmament. This effectively granted Israel unchecked authority to continue its offensive in Gaza if these conditions weren’t met.
The plan further ensured that Israeli forces would maintain a presence around Gaza’s borders indefinitely. Palestinian aspirations for statehood received only a token acknowledgment, making it clear that such hopes were largely dismissed. Furthermore, the Palestinian Authority was sidelined, with no immediate role in Gaza’s future governance.
This marked an unusual triumph for Netanyahu, demonstrating his ability to secure significant concessions despite Israel’s escalating international isolation. Only days prior, European nations had recognized a Palestinian state against Israel’s wishes, and Netanyahu had faced a near-empty hall while speaking at the United Nations.
On Monday afternoon, with President Trump by his side, Prime Minister Netanyahu publicly applauded the US-supported plan, stating it met his terms for ending the conflict with Hamas. Surprisingly, several Arab and Muslim nations, including the Palestinian Authority, seemed prepared to accept its framework.
Crucially, the proposal explicitly denied Hamas any involvement in Gaza’s future governance, clarifying what had previously been ambiguous in other peace initiatives.
However, given the severe impact of the war on Hamas’s leadership and the considerable pressure from influential Muslim nations like Qatar and Turkey, the group’s eventual acceptance of the plan remains a plausible, albeit challenging, possibility.
Hamas leaders are now faced with a critical choice: embrace Trump’s plan, negotiate its conditions, or reject it entirely. Each path presents substantial risks for the Palestinian militant group, which has sustained a resilient insurgency through two years of intense Israeli military action.
While Hamas may find it difficult to accept a deal that effectively dismantles its governance in Gaza, outright rejection of a peace pathway could further alienate Palestinians, who have endured two harrowing years of conflict and destruction. Some residents of Gaza even accuse Hamas of prioritizing its own political survival over the welfare of its people.
Ibrahim Madhoun, a Palestinian analyst with ties to Hamas, noted that the Trump plan’s fundamental premise was ‘excluding Hamas,’ which makes its acceptance problematic for the group. Previously, Hamas officials have clearly stated that surrendering their weapons is a non-negotiable red line.
However, Madhoun suggested that Hamas might still agree to the proposal, or at least use it as a starting point for discussions to cease hostilities. He highlighted that many of the plan’s twenty points lacked clarity, necessitating lengthy negotiations to define their terms.
According to Madhoun, ‘Each clause is such a minefield as to require its own separate agreement.’
Mahmoud Abu Matar, a 27-year-old sheltering in central Gaza, expressed his belief that most Palestinians there would endorse the deal to halt the immediate violence. ‘We don’t want any more war and bloodshed,’ he stated, placing the responsibility squarely on Hamas: ‘The ball is now in Hamas’s court.’
Notably absent from the White House discussions on Monday were several key players in the Trump-Netanyahu vision for Gaza. This included various Arab and Muslim nations—such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates—who had previously offered to contribute troops or funding for a Gaza peacekeeping force.
These nations had established clear prerequisites for their post-war participation: a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and a firm commitment to a path toward Palestinian statehood. They also insisted on an invitation from the Palestinian Authority to ensure their presence was seen as support for a legitimate Palestinian government, not as a new occupation.
However, the Trump-Netanyahu plan failed to meet any of these conditions. It allowed Israel to maintain a security buffer within Gaza’s borders, and the proposed multinational peacekeeping force would directly assume control of territory from the Israeli military. Netanyahu himself dismissed the Palestinian Authority’s potential future role, suggesting it would require a ‘miraculous transformation’ before it could govern Gaza.
Regarding Palestinian statehood, the proposal vaguely stated that post-Gaza reconstruction, ‘the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood’ — provided the Palestinian Authority’s reform program ‘is faithfully carried out.’ Crucially, the plan offered no specifics on who would assess this progress or by what means.
Despite the proposal’s apparent benefits for Netanyahu, it also included politically sensitive concessions. Nadav Eyal, a columnist for the centrist Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, noted on Tuesday that the mentions of future Palestinian statehood, the call for Palestinians to remain in Gaza, and the outright rejection of Israeli annexation ‘completely shatter the far right’s dreams.’
In a joint statement released early Tuesday, the foreign ministers of eight Arab and Muslim-majority nations cautiously welcomed the Trump-Netanyahu proposal, indicating their willingness to cooperate. However, they firmly reiterated their demand for a ‘full Israeli withdrawal’ and the establishment of ‘a just peace on the basis of the two-state solution, under which Gaza is fully integrated with the West Bank in a Palestinian state.’
Nimrod Novik, a seasoned Israeli peace negotiator and former envoy for Prime Minister Shimon Peres, found this ‘yes, but’ response entirely predictable.
Novik warned, ‘We could be in for very prolonged negotiations during which the war goes on, the hostages are at risk, Palestinians die and the ball — in terms of the need to argue with Trump — is in the Arab court.’
Interestingly, the Arab ministers’ statement made no mention of the Palestinian Authority.
Despite being excluded from any immediate role in Gaza, the Palestinian Authority still commended Mr. Trump’s ‘sincere and determined efforts’ to end the conflict, expressing ‘confidence in his ability to find a path toward peace.’ They also articulated their desire for ‘a modern, democratic and nonmilitarized Palestinian state.’
The P.A. further declared its commitment to revising textbooks criticized for demonizing Israel and to ending stipends for Palestinian prisoners and their families. They pledged to invite international oversight for these proposed changes.
This shift in response highlights a significant change since 2020, when Trump’s previous peace plan for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, also heavily favoring Israel, was outright rejected by the P.A. during an American election year, leading to his electoral defeat that November.
Currently, Trump is allowing the P.A. to hold onto the hope of its own future, a luxury not extended to Hamas.