United States President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are set to meet at the White House for the fourth time this year in what could become a decisive moment in the effort to end Israel’s war in Gaza.
After nearly two years of relentless bombardment, ground invasions, and famine that have devastated the enclave and left its people in ruins, Trump is presenting a plan that he believes will bring “something special” and lasting “greatness in the Middle East.”
Yet the deal he is pushing, a 21-point “day after” framework, is already provoking controversy among Israeli hardliners, Palestinian groups, and regional actors who doubt its practicality.
Trump’s blueprint, shared with Arab and Muslim leaders on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, demands that Hamas release all 48 remaining captives within 48 hours, with about 20 of them believed to still be alive.
The plan would allow Hamas fighters to either leave Gaza or accept amnesty if they renounce armed resistance. In exchange, significant humanitarian aid would enter the enclave, Israel would release some Palestinian prisoners, and Israeli forces would gradually withdraw.
Trump has repeatedly posted in capital letters on his Truth Social platform that the time has come to end the war, casting himself as a dealmaker capable of delivering peace where others failed.
Hamas, however, has not confirmed receipt of the plan through mediators Egypt or Qatar, though the group said it would consider a new proposal if presented. Its military wing, the Qassam Brigades, warned that contact had been lost with teams guarding two Israeli captives in Gaza City, amid intensifying Israeli assaults that continue to kill civilians daily and destroy infrastructure.
For Palestinians inside Gaza, the war has become a relentless cycle of hunger, displacement, and death, raising doubts that any proposal led by Washington and embraced by Netanyahu can meet their needs for justice and sovereignty.
Netanyahu has cautiously endorsed the plan in his public comments, saying Israel is working with Washington to “make it a go.” Yet implementing it would directly contradict the goals of his far-right coalition partners.
The proposal explicitly leaves open the possibility of a future Palestinian state and guarantees that Palestinians will not be forcibly expelled from Gaza, giving them a right of return if they choose to leave temporarily.
This runs counter to the ideology of ministers like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, both settlers who have publicly advocated for the destruction of Gaza, the denial of humanitarian aid, and the construction of new Israeli settlements inside the enclave.
For months, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir have pushed to cut off food, water, and medicine to Gaza, framing starvation as a weapon of war.
They also want “voluntary migration” of Palestinians with no return option, a policy that human rights groups have described as forced displacement.
Both men, sanctioned by Western governments for incitement and violence, have blasted Trump’s proposal despite praising him as Israel’s most supportive ally in the White House.
They argue that Netanyahu has no mandate to accept such a plan without completely eliminating Hamas, the original stated objective of the war launched in October 2023.
Netanyahu, however, is walking a political tightrope. His coalition is fragile, holding just 60 seats in Israel’s 120-member Knesset after defections by ultra-Orthodox parties earlier this year over disputes about military conscription exemptions.
Smotrich and Ben-Gvir’s parties hold 13 seats and could collapse the government if they withdrew, potentially triggering new elections. Yet despite fiery rhetoric, they are unlikely to risk toppling Netanyahu as long as Israel’s military continues to occupy Gaza and block most humanitarian aid while pushing deeper into its largest cities.
The prime minister cannot afford to alienate Trump, whose administration has provided unconditional diplomatic and military support, shielding Israel from international accountability.
Trump’s proposal goes beyond immediate ceasefire terms and sketches out a longer-term governance plan for Gaza. It envisions the establishment of the Gaza International Transitional Authority (GITA), a body reportedly designed in coordination with Netanyahu and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Blair, whose legacy remains tarnished by the 2003 Iraq war, is touted as a possible leader of the body. Under the plan, senior international figures and business leaders would sit at the top, with Palestinians relegated to technocratic roles at the bottom.
A multinational stabilization force would control Gaza’s borders, coastline, and “perimeter zones,” while Israel insists on retaining overarching “security control.”
According to documents published in Israel’s Haaretz, GITA would start with a $90 million budget, rising to $164 million within three years, covering management but not the massive costs of reconstruction and humanitarian relief.
Palestinians would be expected to work under the authority of international commissioners while the Palestinian Authority undergoes reforms in preparation for taking over governance at an unspecified future date.
Many see this as an imposition rather than self-determination, and critics have already described it as an externally engineered experiment with little legitimacy among those who have borne the brunt of Israel’s war.
Meanwhile, the war rages on. Israeli raids and settler attacks continue daily in the occupied West Bank, where homes are demolished and land is seized despite Trump’s public claim that he will not allow annexation.
Hospitals in Gaza have been bombed, famine has been confirmed by humanitarian agencies, and international pressure is mounting on Israel to end the violence.
Reports indicate that nearly half of all deaths in Gaza occurred in areas Israel had designated as “safe zones,” undermining its claims of precision warfare. Investigations have also exposed false justifications for strikes, including the bombing of hospitals and journalists.
Trump’s credibility as a peace broker is further complicated by his controversial record and divisive style. He has openly embraced far-right Israeli leaders, dismissed Palestinian aspirations, and used incendiary rhetoric that critics say undermines the very trust needed for negotiations.
Yet he continues to portray himself as uniquely capable of closing deals that eluded his predecessors. His plan may appeal to some Arab and Muslim states seeking an end to the bloodshed, but without buy-in from Palestinians themselves, it risks being seen as another foreign-imposed arrangement that sustains occupation rather than ending it.
As Trump and Netanyahu meet, the stakes could not be higher. For Palestinians, the war has already destroyed lives, communities, and any sense of normalcy.
For Israelis, security concerns remain acute, with Hamas still operating despite years of devastating offensives. For the international community, the credibility of international law and the possibility of a two-state solution hang in the balance.
Trump insists his plan offers “greatness in the Middle East,” but history has shown that peace cannot be imposed without justice, accountability, and genuine self-determination.
The meeting in Washington may signal a turning point—or it may simply mark another chapter in a long cycle of war, occupation, and broken promises.
