Will Trump’s plan bring an end to the war in Gaza?

There are clear signs that US President Donald Trump wants a deal as soon as possible. The simultaneous acceptance of Trump’s plan announced just days ago by both the Israeli government and Hamas signals a new development that could pave the way toward ending the war in Gaza. The negotiations, taking place in Sharm Alsheikh, Egypt’s Red Sea resort city, which being mediated jointly by the United States, Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey, have been given only a few days to reach an initial agreement to bring the war to a halt. Senior US officials Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner have arrived to oversee and facilitate the process. This development is further reinforced by Trump’s upcoming urgent visit to Egypt next Tuesday, underscoring the seriousness that characterises his current initiative and posing a central question which is: what distinguishes Trump’s latest plan, presented earlier this month, from previous ceasefire proposals, and why it may hold a greater likelihood of success?

Trump’s plan is structured around three core pillars: sustained de-escalation, economic reconstruction, and regional and international security guarantees. The security dimension includes joint monitoring mechanisms designed to maintain the cease fire, prevent arms smuggling, and define the role of Gaza’s security forces within a unified Palestinian framework under international supervision. According to Israeli media reports, most provisions of the first phase have already been agreed upon, with remaining disputes focusing mainly on the withdrawal schedule and oversight of the plan’s implementation.

The timing of Trump’s initiative to halt the war in Gaza and the political circumstances surrounding it offer a better chance for success than previous efforts, despite the persistence of structural challenges and the obstacles that remain. The achievement of  a cease fire in Gaza ultimately depends on the political will of Trump, Netanyahu, and Hamas. Although both Netanyahu and Hamas expressed reservations about Trump’s proposal, they quickly accepted it, and it was an early shared inclination to avoid confrontation with Washington. Although Netanyahu’s insistence on securing the release of all captives, listed as the first clause in Trump’s plan and treated by Netanyahu as his top priority,  his readiness to implement the first phase immediately once Hamas agrees to release the captives, and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza is designed to occur in stages, reflect a negative signal. The implementation plan in its second phase under international monitoring and security guarantees could help address Hamas’s long standing doubts about Israel’s compliance , an issue that has repeatedly derailed past efforts at resolution. The group demands an immediate, partial retreat of Israeli forces to the so-called “yellow line” inside Gaza once the agreement takes effect, as part of a clear and scheduled withdrawal plan. It also demands the immediate entry of humanitarian assistance specifically, 400 truckloads of food per day.

Netanyahu has made the release of all captives held in Gaza, both the living and the dead, a precondition for any further steps under Trump’s twenty-point plan. This demand is unlikely to pose an obstacle within the framework of a deal with Hamas, which has previously expressed readiness to meet that condition if part of a broader agreement covering other terms.This would relieve Hamas, in the eyes of the world, from Israel’s use of the prisoners’ issue as a justification for continuing the war. Netanyahu continues to reject the release of prominent Palestinian leaders such as Marwan Barghouti and Ahmad Sa’adat, the Secretary General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, but he has agreed to free 250 prisoners serving life sentences, and this is not expected to pose an obstacle to completing the first phase of the deal. Although Netanyahu had previously rejected transferring control of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority, he has lately conditioned his acceptance to a series of conditions, many of them seen as unrealistic, linked to Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the broader peace process rather than to Gaza itself or institutional reform within the Authority. Such conditions appear detached from the immediate context and political reality, suggesting he may ultimately abandon them in the coming days.

Ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have threatened to resign from the governing coalition if the agreement allowed Hamas to retain authority in Gaza. This represents a notable shift from their prior positions, which opposed both Israel’s withdrawal and any halt to the war. Now, their current demands, partially converge with Hamas’s acceptance of withdrawing from Gaza’s administrative governance. Hamas has accepted the U.S. proposal while requesting further consultations and clarifications regarding its mechanisms and certain provisions, mainly those related to full disarmament, the withdrawal plan, and the role of international administration.

The movement has not previously obstructed cease fire efforts; it has often offered to release all captives in exchange for Palestinian prisoners and has consistently called for a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza while expressing readiness to relinquish its governing role.

There is mounting evidence that the United States is intensifying pressure on Israel to conclude a ceasefire arrangement and endorse President Trump’s proposal. The timing of Trump’s proposal is notable, it coincides with the second anniversary of the 7 October attacks, appears deliberate, as it offers political and media leverage that Trump seeks to translate into a personal and historical achievement forming part of his political legacy. The Trump administration is pursuing a more assertive American role in reshaping the Middle East and imprinting its influence on the evolving regional order, particularly in focal conflicts such as Gaza. This prospective success is central to Trump’s broader geopolitical strategy, reinforcing the United States’ competitive standing vis-à-vis major powers including China, Russia, and the European Union. Mounting pressure from US public opinion and influential media outlets has also played a key role in shaping the administration’s latest actions. Recent opinion polls indicate that a significant segment of the American public, especially among younger and Democratic constituencies, believes that Israel has gone too far in its war on Gaza.  Prominent US media outlets, including CNN and The New York Times, have increasingly emphasised the humanitarian consequences of the war, spotlighting civilian suffering, widespread destruction, while focusing attention on the plight of the captives. In parallel, progressive Democrats in Congress have amplified their calls to reassess the scope and nature of American support for Israel, thereby contributing to growing political tensions within Washington. The official website of the White House has underscored what it describes as “global support” for Trump’s plan, reflecting a coordinated effort to promote the initiative and increasing political as well as diplomatic pressure on both the Palestinian and Israeli parties, particularly the latter. A report by Axios revealed that Trump was displeased with Netanyahu’s reservations regarding Hamas’s response to the proposal, noting that Trump characterised the movement’s reply as “a good starting point” and said he would personally work to persuade Netanyahu not to reject it. Similarly, The Times of Israel noted that Trump’s warning to Hamas—that it would face destruction if it insisted on staying in power—served as indirect pressure on Israel to comply with his plan. In parallel, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan disclosed that Trump had requested Ankara’s assistance in persuading Hamas to accept the proposal, placing Israel in a diplomatically uncomfortable position. Trump’s subsequent call for Israel to “cease bombing immediately” following Hamas’s acceptance of the plan illustrates the heightened US pressure to bring hostilities to an end. Israel’s announcement of a suspension of its Gaza offensive, while continuing limited security operations, appears to reflect a partial response. The notable decrease in casualties reported in Gaza since the plan’s unveiling may therefore be interpreted as a cautious and tangible sign of Israeli compliance.

Two years after the Gaza war, Netanyahu finds himself caught between three fronts: mounting international pressure to end the war; a perceptible shift in Israeli public opinion increasingly favoring a cease fire; and threats from his far right coalition partners to leave the government if Hamas remains in power in Gaza. Netanyahu effectively faces three strategic choices. The first involves prolonging negotiations to gain time while maintaining nominal endorsement of Trump’s plan, a tactic consistent with his traditional political approach. However, such a course could place him at odds with Trump’s agenda and generate friction in their relationship, a risk Netanyahu seeks to avoid at a time when Washington stands as his sole significant international backer. The second option is to adopt Trump’s plan outright and present it as a “political victory.” Yet this carries the likelihood of internal dissent and potential fragmentation within his governing coalition, possibly leading to its collapse. The third alternative entails forming a temporary national unity government with Benny Gantz or Yair Lapid to facilitate the plan’s adoption. This arrangement could provide Netanyahu with a political safeguard against government dissolution and would likely receive Washington’s approval. Nevertheless, it would not guarantee long term political stability, as such a coalition could unravel once the conflict subsides. For now, the prevailing calculation appears to favor alignment with Washington, either through consolidating support within his existing coalition or by restructuring it to ensure implementation of the plan without triggering its downfall.

Netanyahu regards Trump’s plan as a strategy to restore external legitimacy and consolidate his political position. though adherence to the plan could subject him to considerable domestic strain. Concurrently, indications from Washington suggest that Trump’s initiative embodies both the intent and the strategic interest of the United States to bring the war to an end, at a moment of Israil pronounced international isolation, and the United States costly remains its only diplomatic shield. Israel continues to bear the heavy costs of a prolonged war of attrition in Gaza, alongside mounting political turmoil at home. The current situation in Gaza has also become increasingly untenable. The United Nations, the European Union, and the Global South now characterise Gaza as a major humanitarian crisis that can no longer be managed through temporary aid mechanisms. Coordination between Washington, Brussels, and the United Nations is seen as essential to providing binding security, political, and financial guarantees for both sides, particularly for the Palestinians, who remain wary of the close US Israeli relationship and Washington’s commitments to Israel. The European Union’s position is also crucial in giving the plan diplomatic cover, especially in countering opposition from Netanyahu’s right wing coalition. Although there are numerous signs that a deal is near, its final shape will only become clear once it is officially announced. Serious concerns also remain about whether Israel will fully comply with the plan’s provisions once it takes effect.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.