In a high-stakes moment that could reshape the future of the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled a controversial new plan to end the war in Gaza during a press conference at the White House on September 29, 2025. The proposal, which has drawn both international support and fierce criticism, demands that Hamas immediately release all hostages and lay down its arms, while allowing Israeli forces to remain in much of Gaza for the foreseeable future. The plan’s fate now hinges on whether Hamas will accept, negotiate, or reject its terms—a decision with profound implications for Palestinians and Israelis alike.
According to The Guardian, Netanyahu described the Washington trip as "historic," asserting that the tables had turned: "Instead of Hamas isolating us, we turned the tables and isolated Hamas. Now the whole world, including the Arab and Islamic world, is pressuring Hamas to accept the conditions we jointly presented with President Trump: release all of our hostages – alive and dead – while the IDF remains in the majority of the territory." Netanyahu was explicit about one thing: Israel “absolutely did not” agree to a Palestinian state, a stance he said was shared by Trump. "President Trump also said this; he understands our position. He also stated at the UN that such a move would be a huge reward for terrorism and a threat to the existence of the State of Israel. And of course, we will not agree," Netanyahu stated in his video address.
During the White House press conference, President Trump declared that the parties were "beyond very close" to securing a peace deal. As reported by i24NEWS, the plan quickly garnered international support, with Arab and Islamic countries, as well as Western governments, issuing statements of commendation. Qatar and Egypt, key mediators in the region, shared the document with Hamas, which reportedly promised to review it "in good faith" before responding. Trump, meanwhile, issued a stern warning: if Hamas rejected the offer, Israel would have full U.S. support to continue its military campaign in Gaza as it saw fit.
Netanyahu’s satisfaction with the plan was clear. He insisted that the proposal fulfilled his government’s conditions, including the continued presence of Israeli forces in Gaza and the return of hostages. However, he was adamant that the agreement did not include any provision for a Palestinian state—an issue that remains a major sticking point for Palestinians and the wider Arab world.
Not everyone in Israel’s government was pleased. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a prominent figure in the right-wing coalition, lambasted the proposal as a "loud diplomatic failure." He predicted, "In my assessment, this will also end in tears. Our children will have to fight in Gaza again." Such criticism reflects the deep divisions within Israel over how to handle the conflict and the future of Gaza.
International reaction to the Trump-Netanyahu plan was swift and, in some quarters, surprisingly positive. The Palestinian Authority (PA) issued a statement welcoming Trump’s "sincere and tireless efforts to end the war on Gaza and affirms its confidence in his ability to find a path to peace." The PA also committed to significant reforms, including developing a new curriculum in line with UNESCO standards within two years and abolishing payments to families of prisoners and martyrs—longstanding points of contention with Israel and Western donors.
In a joint statement, the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE, Indonesia, Pakistan, Türkiye, Qatar, and Egypt expressed support for Trump’s leadership and the plan itself. They "welcome President Trump's leadership and his sincere efforts to end the war in Gaza and assert their confidence in his ability to find a path to peace." The ministers praised the proposal’s stated goals of ending the war, rebuilding Gaza, preventing the displacement of Palestinians, and advancing a comprehensive peace. They also noted Trump’s assurance that he would not allow the annexation of the West Bank.
Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair added his backing, calling the plan "bold and intelligent" and suggesting that, if agreed upon, it could "end the war, bring immediate relief to Gaza, the chance of a brighter and better future for its people, whilst ensuring Israel's absolute and enduring security and the release of all hostages."
Yet, as The New York Times noted, the plan gives little more than a passing nod to Palestinian aspirations for statehood. The proposal all but suggests Palestinians "just keep dreaming," with the Palestinian Authority left playing no role in Gaza anytime soon. In fact, the plan’s only mention of statehood is that, as Gaza is rebuilt, "the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood"—but only if the Palestinian Authority’s reform program "is faithfully carried out." No specifics are given as to who would determine whether these conditions are met or how progress would be measured.
For Hamas, the options are fraught with risk. Accepting the plan would effectively mean surrendering its rule in Gaza, a red line for the group, especially as the plan explicitly excludes Hamas from any future governance of the enclave. Palestinian analyst Ibrahim Madhoun, who is close to Hamas, told The New York Times that the plan is "based on excluding Hamas," making it difficult for the group to accept. Still, he acknowledged that Hamas could agree to the proposal—or at least use it as a basis for negotiations—to end the war. "Each clause is such a minefield as to require its own separate agreement," Madhoun observed, pointing out that many of the plan’s 20 points are vague and would require protracted negotiations.
The pressure on Hamas is intense, not only from Israel and the U.S., but also from Muslim countries such as Qatar and Turkey, which have supported the group in the past but are now urging an end to the conflict. Hamas negotiators were expected to meet with Turkish officials in Doha to discuss the plan, while Trump gave the group "three or four days" to respond.
Ordinary Palestinians, exhausted by nearly two years of war, seem desperate for peace. "We don’t want any more war and bloodshed," said Mahmoud Abu Matar, a 27-year-old sheltering in central Gaza, who told The New York Times that most Gazans would likely support the deal if it meant an immediate end to violence. "The ball is now in Hamas’s court."
Despite the international momentum, major obstacles remain. Arab nations offering peacekeeping forces have insisted on conditions that the plan does not meet, such as Israel’s full withdrawal from Gaza and a clear pathway to Palestinian statehood. The multinational peacekeeping force envisioned in the plan would take over territory directly from the Israeli military, while the Palestinian Authority is sidelined until it undergoes reforms that Netanyahu himself has dismissed as unlikely.
As the world waits for Hamas’s response, analysts warn that the plan’s real viability will depend on concrete steps by both sides and a willingness to negotiate over the future governance of Gaza. For now, the region stands at a crossroads, with the prospect of peace tantalizingly close—but far from guaranteed.
