In a dramatic turn of events, U.S. President Donald Trump has placed himself at the center of efforts to end the two-year war in Gaza, unveiling a plan that promises peace—but only on terms dictated by American and Israeli interests. Over the weekend, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly claimed credit for the emerging deal to free all remaining hostages held by Hamas and bring the devastating conflict to a close. But as reporting from Axios, Yedioth Ahronoth, and Al-Monitor made clear, it was Trump, not Netanyahu, calling the shots.
Trump’s proposal, presented on October 6, 2025, frames peace not as a mutual agreement, but as something to be imposed—what he calls “peace by force.” In his own words, relayed to Israeli media, Trump described strong-arming Netanyahu into agreement: “I said, ‘Bibi, this is your chance for victory.’ He was fine with it. He’s got to be fine with it. He has no choice. With me, you got to be fine.” According to Axios, this blunt approach left Netanyahu with little room to maneuver, especially as Israel faces mounting international censure for its conduct in Gaza and increasing diplomatic isolation.
The plan itself is sweeping. It aims to push Hamas out of the Gaza political scene, aligning closely with Netanyahu’s long-stated preferences. Central to the proposal is the release of both living and deceased hostages—a move designed to appeal to Trump’s desire for a legacy-defining breakthrough and to address the demands of Israeli society, where a majority now favors ending the war to bring hostages home. The first phase of the deal proposes exchanging about 20 living hostages and the bodies of 28 believed dead for 250 Palestinian prisoners serving life terms and hundreds more Gazans detained during the war. As Trump announced on social media, once Hamas signs on, a cease-fire would “IMMEDIATELY” go into effect.
Hamas’s response, however, was far from capitulation. According to Al-Monitor and Yedioth Ahronoth, the group agreed to release both living and deceased hostages in a single move, but also issued significant counter-demands. Hamas linked any discussion of disarmament to the creation of a Palestinian authority, insisted on the establishment of a Palestinian state, and demanded a governing framework for Gaza. This signaled a shift in strategy—one that would allow Hamas to retain influence in Palestinian politics, much like Hezbollah’s role in Lebanon. As Dr. Amer Al Sabaileh noted, “By positioning itself as an inseparable part of the Palestinian political scene, linking the question of disarmament to a Palestinian authority, and most importantly raising the demand for a Palestinian state and a governing framework for Gaza, Hamas signaled its intention to adopt a model closer to Hezbollah’s role in Lebanon.”
Despite these demands, most analysts—including those cited by Yedioth Ahronoth—agree that the immediate focus is on halting the war and securing the hostages’ release. Achieving this could force Israel to postpone further military operations, even as deeper issues remain unresolved. Netanyahu, for his part, continues a delicate balancing act: He must fulfill his promise of “total victory” over Hamas to satisfy his far-right coalition partners, while also addressing the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, where tens of thousands have died and hunger is rampant. The Israeli leader’s political survival now appears more closely tied than ever to Trump’s goodwill.
Trump’s heavy-handed diplomacy has also affected Israel’s military operations. After receiving Hamas’s response, Trump publicly ordered, “Israel must immediately stop the bombing of Gaza, so that we can get the Hostages out safely and quickly!” Within hours, the Israeli military scaled back its actions, limiting itself to what officials described as defensive operations and responses to immediate threats. This marked a sharp break from Netanyahu’s previous insistence that negotiations would only occur “under fire.”
Yet, even as Netanyahu publicly credits both military and diplomatic pressure for pushing Hamas toward acceptance, he has been forced to make uncomfortable concessions. Trump compelled him to sign onto a clause in the deal promising, however vaguely, a “credible pathway” to Palestinian statehood—a position Netanyahu has long opposed. The Israeli prime minister’s humiliation was compounded when Trump made him apologize directly to Qatar’s prime minister for a botched Israeli operation in Doha, with the White House releasing a photo of Netanyahu reading his apology as Trump looked on.
For Netanyahu, this new reality represents a loss of autonomy. As Israeli political columnist Nahum Barnea wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth, “Trump doesn’t threaten Netanyahu; he orders him.” The prime minister’s options are limited, as his government’s reliance on the U.S. grows and his political capital wanes. “His entire career has been in a free fall in the last few days,” observed Israeli pollster Mitchell Barak. “He agreed to everything.” Still, some analysts, like Mazal Mualem of Al-Monitor, believe Netanyahu’s political instincts may yet allow him to convince his base that the deal is a win for Israel.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s approach has sent shockwaves through the region, particularly in Iran. Tehran now faces deeper international isolation, renewed sanctions, and the threat of direct confrontation with both Israel and the United States. The American plan explicitly targets militias and weapons linked to Iran’s regional strategy, aiming to dismantle the networks that have long provided Tehran with leverage. Ali Larijani’s recent visit to Beirut, where he highlighted Hezbollah’s capabilities, was a clear signal that Iran is not willing to cede its influence without a fight.
Trump’s strategy, as described by Dr. Al Sabaileh, “may well become the defining label of the Trump administration, and its logic applies most of all to Iran.” Israel’s embrace of this vision is equally clear: The plan allows Israel to shape Gaza’s future on its own terms, avoid real pressure on the West Bank, and extend a regional framework that stretches from Syria to Lebanon—and ultimately to Iran. As Trump touts the expansion of the Abraham Accords and a “coming peace,” Iran is cast as the main obstacle to stability.
In a symbolic move, the Trump administration has even renamed the Department of Defense as the Department of War, underscoring its new doctrine: “If you want peace, you must prepare for war.” This motto, repeated often by administration officials, encapsulates the current American approach to the Middle East—a peace imposed by strength, rather than negotiated through compromise.
As talks are set to begin in Egypt and the world watches closely, the future of Gaza—and the wider region—hangs in the balance. Whether Trump’s “peace by force” will bring lasting stability or merely set the stage for new conflicts remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: the balance of power has shifted, and the consequences will be felt far beyond the borders of Gaza.
