Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu stood side by side in Washington, unveiling what they called a “historic breakthrough” that would finally bring peace to Gaza, but their message carried a sharp edge: accept the deal or face annihilation.
The US president and the Israeli prime minister announced their 20-point Gaza peace plan, warning Hamas that the window for compromise was rapidly closing. “Israel would have my full backing to finish the job of destroying the threat of Hamas,” Trump told reporters at the White House. Netanyahu added darkly: “This can be done the easy way or the hard way, but it will be done.”
The plan, revealed after weeks of speculation, calls for an immediate ceasefire, a swap of hostages held by Hamas for Palestinian prisoners, a staged Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, Hamas’s disarmament, and the installation of a transitional government led by an international oversight body.
Trump declared that “the hostages are coming back,” promising that if Hamas agreed, all remaining captives would be released within 72 hours. Netanyahu hailed the proposal as one that “achieves our war aims,” but his words underscored the deal’s zero-sum premise: Hamas either lays down its arms or Israel eliminates it completely.
What made the joint appearance striking was not only the show of unity but also the absence of Hamas in the process. Mahmoud Mardawi, a Hamas official, told Reuters the group “had not even received the plan at the time of the announcement.”
Only later, through Qatari and Egyptian mediators, did Hamas leaders learn of its contents. That exclusion raised immediate doubts over its viability. Yet for Trump and Netanyahu, the optics were deliberate: they wanted to project authority and inevitability.
Trump, relishing the moment, described the new oversight body as the “Board of Peace,” insisting it would be headed, “not at my request,” by none other than himself.
Alongside him would be former British prime minister Tony Blair, who quickly endorsed the effort. “President Trump has put down a bold and intelligent plan,” Blair said, arguing it could end the war and bring “the chance of a brighter and better future for Gaza’s people, while ensuring Israel’s absolute and enduring security.”
The optics of Trump personally chairing Gaza’s reconstruction, however, sparked immediate controversy. Critics pointed to his earlier comments about turning Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East,” which opponents called a thinly veiled push for displacement.
Trump tried to soften that perception, saying: “No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return.”
Still, the leaked 21-page draft, seen by reporters in Washington and Tel Aviv, suggested that the proposed governing authority would sideline key Palestinian political figures while concentrating vast power in the chair’s hands.
That detail fueled fears of external domination rather than genuine Palestinian self-rule. Netanyahu brushed such concerns aside, stressing Israel’s security imperatives. “Hamas will be disarmed.
Gaza will be demilitarized. Israel will retain security responsibility, including a security perimeter, for the foreseeable future. Gaza will have a peaceful, civilian administration that is run neither by Hamas nor by the Palestinian Authority,” he said.
The timing of the announcement was also significant. Just days earlier, the UK, Canada, and Australia had formally recognized Palestinian statehood, joined by a wave of Western governments in defiance of Washington and Tel Aviv.
Trump blasted those moves as “a prize for Hamas,” while Netanyahu used his fourth White House visit of Trump’s second presidency to tighten his country’s most vital alliance. Both men were keen to signal that despite international momentum for Palestinian sovereignty, they remained the true arbiters of the conflict’s future.
The humanitarian toll in Gaza loomed over the event. Since October 7, 2023, Israeli operations have killed more than 65,000 people, mostly civilians, and injured at least 160,000. Israeli tanks had just pushed deeper into Gaza City, part of one of the war’s most intense offensives.
For Netanyahu, the high cost was framed as necessary. “We didn’t fight this horrible fight, sacrifice the finest of our young men, to have Hamas stay in Gaza and threaten us again and again with these horrific massacres,” he said.
For Trump, the devastation was framed as an opportunity to rebuild under his vision. He promised an economic development plan that would “rebuild and energize Gaza” with a panel of Middle Eastern investment experts.
Arab leaders responded with a mixture of cautious endorsement and unease. The foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE, Qatar, and Egypt issued a joint statement welcoming Trump’s announcement.
The Palestinian Authority likewise voiced support for Trump’s “determined efforts.” Yet Islamic Jihad leader Ziad al-Nakhala dismissed the plan as “a recipe to blow up the region,” underscoring the rift among Palestinian factions.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, had to clean up diplomatic fallout from Israel’s recent military strike in Qatar that killed a Qatari serviceman. He phoned Qatari prime minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani, issuing what the White House described as a “heart-to-heart” apology.
“Israel was targeting terrorists, it wasn’t targeting Qatar, and of course we regretted the loss of the Qatari citizen who wasn’t our target,” Netanyahu said. The episode revealed the fragile balance Israel must strike between pursuing Hamas leaders abroad and maintaining ties with Arab states critical to any mediation effort.
Trump portrayed himself as the indispensable broker. “We’re not quite finished. We have to get Hamas, but I think they’re going to be able to do that. So now it’s time for Hamas to accept the terms of the plan we’ve put forward today,” he said.
His language suggested not negotiation but capitulation. Netanyahu reinforced that point: “If Hamas rejects your plan, Mr President, then Israel will finish the job by itself.”
Skepticism, however, ran deep in Gaza. Residents, already battered by two years of bombardment, questioned whether any US-led plan could address their core demands.
The sidelining of Palestinian leadership figures, the promise of continued Israeli security control, and Trump’s personal chairmanship all fueled doubts. As one resident told newsmwn: “It feels like Gaza is being treated as a business project, not a home where people deserve freedom and dignity.”
Still, supporters framed the deal as the best chance in years to end the bloodshed. Blair praised Trump’s “leadership, determination and commitment.”
Arab states pointed to the urgency of halting civilian casualties. Trump’s allies hailed the plan as proof that he alone could achieve what decades of American presidents had failed to deliver.
But for critics, the absence of Hamas’s consent, the concentration of power in Trump’s hands, and the vague promises of development made the proposal look less like a peace plan and more like an ultimatum.
Whether Hamas accepts or rejects it will likely determine the war’s next phase. If Hamas says no, Netanyahu has vowed to press ahead with overwhelming force, backed by Trump’s full political support.
If Hamas says yes, the region may enter an uneasy experiment with externally supervised governance. Either way, the people of Gaza face an uncertain future, caught between destruction and a deal many view as imposed from above.
As Netanyahu put it starkly: “All these goals must be achieved. We’d prefer the easy way, but it has to be done.” Trump, never shy about his central role, closed the announcement by proclaiming: “We are beyond very close. This is the moment for peace, for security, and for prosperity. Now it is time for Hamas to decide.”
—
Main focus keyphrase:
Trump Netanyahu Gaza peace plan
Secondary keyphrases:
Gaza ceasefire ultimatum, Hamas rejection threat, Trump Gaza development plan, Netanyahu Gaza security control, Trump Netanyahu Hamas ultimatum, Gaza reconstruction peace deal, Israel Hamas negotiations, Middle East peace proposal
