Trump’s peace plan for Gaza is REJECTED by Israel as Netanyahu refuses to withdraw until Hamas is disarmed
Israel has rejected Donald Trump's proposed peace plan for Gaza, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisting Israeli forces will not withdraw from the territory until Hamas has been fully disarmed. The rebuff represents a setback for the US president's efforts to broker an end to the conflict and underlines the continuing gulf between Washington's diplomatic push and Israel's military conditions for ending the war.
Netanyahu's stance ties any Israeli withdrawal to the complete disarmament of Hamas, a condition the group has so far resisted and which analysts see as a major sticking point to any lasting ceasefire. The rejection leaves Trump's initiative in limbo and raises questions about how the US will respond to its ally's refusal to align with the plan.
- Israel rejects Trump's Gaza peace plan.
- Netanyahu demands Hamas disarmament before any withdrawal.
- Move deepens rift between US diplomacy and Israeli military stance.
New here? Start with this
Israel's rejection of Donald Trump's Gaza peace plan is the latest turn in a war that began after the Hamas-led attack on Israel in October 2023, which killed around 1,200 people and saw hundreds taken hostage. Israel's military response has since caused massive destruction and loss of life in Gaza, and repeated attempts by the US and other mediators to broker a lasting ceasefire have so far failed to end the fighting permanently.
The key figures are US President Donald Trump, who has pushed his own plan to wind down the conflict, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who leads a government that includes hardline coalition partners opposed to concessions towards Hamas. Hamas, the armed group that has controlled Gaza since 2007, is the third central party, and its future role, weapons and presence in Gaza remain the most contested issues in any settlement.
This matters because the United States is Israel's closest ally and principal arms supplier, so a public rift between Trump and Netanyahu over how to end the war carries weight well beyond the two men. Disarming Hamas has long been seen as one of the hardest conditions to meet, and disagreement over it goes to the heart of whether the war, and the suffering it has caused on all sides, can be brought to a close.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of Trump's plan argue that ending the war quickly is the paramount moral and strategic priority: further fighting compounds a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, deepens Israel's international isolation, and risks entrenching a conflict with no military endpoint. They contend that a phased ceasefire and staged withdrawal, backed by international monitors and reconstruction funding, offers the most realistic path to security and stability, and that insisting on total disarmament first as a precondition may simply prolong the war indefinitely since Hamas is unlikely ever to fully comply. Proponents also stress the value of maintaining unity with Washington, Israel's principal ally and security guarantor.
The case against
Netanyahu and his supporters argue that withdrawing before Hamas is disarmed would repeat past mistakes, leaving the group free to rearm, rebuild its tunnel network and launch further attacks, as they contend happened after previous ceasefires. They hold that Israel's own security cannot be delegated to international guarantees or monitoring arrangements they view as unenforceable, and that the October 7th attacks demonstrated the existential cost of underestimating Hamas's intentions. From this perspective, sustaining military pressure until disarmament is achieved, even at the cost of friction with Washington, is a necessary and legitimate defence of Israeli citizens' safety.