Trump Lays Out Powerful Plan To End Gaza War, While Warning Hamas To Accept Terms

The US president thanked Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for agreeing to the extensive plan, which includes the immediate release of all hostages, Hamas disarmament and Israeli withdrawal from Gaza

President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday rolled out a sweeping proposal at the White House to halt the war in Gaza, free the remaining captives within days, and stand up a new security and governing architecture for the enclave. The plan is designed to stop the fighting through a time-bound hostage deal and a verified Israel Defense Forces (IDF) pullback while an international mission moves in to police the territory and a technocratic Palestinian team restores basic governance. The US president said Arab states were prepared to help carry out security tasks and reconstruction; Israel signaled it would support the framework if Hamas agrees.

This proposal calls for the release of all remaining hostages immediately, but in no case more than 72 hours

President Trump cast the moment in characteristically grand terms. Calling it “a big, big day, a beautiful day, potentially one of the greatest days ever in civilization,” he said, “This proposal calls for the release of all remaining hostages immediately, but in no case more than 72 hours.” If Gaza’s dominant armed group refuses, he added, Israel would have Washington’s backing: “If Hamas rejects the deal, which is always possible, they’re the only one left. Everyone else has accepted it. But if not, as you know, Bibi, you’d have our full backing to do what you would have to do.”

Netanyahu, appearing alongside President Trump, endorsed the structure, tying his support to Israel’s core war goals and warning of consequences for noncompliance. “I support your plan to end the war in Gaza, which achieves our war aims,” he said. If Hamas does not sign on, he added, “This can be done the easy way or it can be done the hard way. But it will be done.” The prime minister also said that if the proposal advances, Israel will redeploy its forces but keep troops “in the security perimeter for the foreseeable future.”

What the Framework Does

Cease-fire and sequencing. The White House document envisions fighting stopping once both sides accept the deal. IDF units would move to agreed lines, front lines would freeze, and all air and artillery strikes would pause while arrangements are made for a staged withdrawal tied to security milestones. The headline trade is immediate: Hamas would return every hostage—alive and dead—within 72 hours of Israel’s public acceptance. The Israeli-approved count late last week put the number of captives at 48, including around 20 who remain alive and the remains of around 28 who died in captivity. President Trump, in his remarks at the press conference, referred to 52 remaining hostages, around 20 of whom are still living.

Prisoner exchange and remains. After the hostages come home, Israel would free 250 prisoners serving life sentences and 1,700 Gazans detained after Oct. 7, 2023, including all women and minors held in that context. The document also sets terms for remains: For each Israeli whose body is returned, the remains of 15 Palestinians would be repatriated.

Disarmament, amnesty, and safe passage. The text conditions Gaza’s future on the dismantling of tunnels, weapons factories, and other offensive infrastructure. Hamas and allied factions would be excluded from governance “directly or indirectly.” Members of the organization who accept peaceful coexistence and hand over weapons would receive amnesty; those who wish to depart Gaza would receive safe passage to countries willing to host them. Demobilization would be verified by independent monitors and supported by an internationally funded buy-back and reintegration program.

Immediate aid surge. Humanitarian support would scale up at once to repair water, electricity, and sewage networks; get hospitals and bakeries back online; and bring in heavy equipment to clear rubble and reopen roads. The United Nations, the Red Crescent, and other neutral organizations would run deliveries without interference by either party. Rafah would operate under mechanisms agreed in a Jan. 19 arrangement, allowing two-way movement consistent with the humanitarian plan.

Temporary government and the Board of Peace. Day-to-day administration would shift to a nonpartisan Palestinian committee of technocrats, paired with international experts. Oversight and funding would sit with a transitional “Board of Peace” the American president said he would chair, with “very distinguished leaders” involved; he named former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair as interested in participating. The board would set standards, supervise disarmament, and manage reconstruction until the Palestinian Authority (PA) completes a reform program and is deemed capable of taking charge. Economic pieces include a special zone with preferential access and an investment plan modeled on Middle Eastern “modern miracle cities.”

Security architecture. The United States would organize, with Arab and other partners, a temporary International Stabilization Force (ISF) to deploy in Gaza. The ISF would train and support vetted Palestinian police, consult with Egypt and Jordan, secure border areas with Israel and Egypt, and enforce a deconfliction mechanism to keep relief and recovery moving. Israel would not annex Gaza. As the ISF establishes control, the IDF would withdraw in phases tied to demilitarization benchmarks set with the US and guarantors—while keeping a security buffer until Gaza is “properly secure from any resurgent terror threat.”

If Hamas balks. The package says reconstruction and the expanded aid operation would go forward in areas deemed “terror-free” where the IDF hands control to the ISF, even if Hamas delays or rejects the deal.

This can be done the easy way or it can be done the hard way. But it will be done.

Israel’s Position—and Its Politics

Netanyahu offered praise for President Trump—“You are the greatest friend that Israel has ever had in the White House,” he said—and framed the plan as consistent with decisions his cabinet already took for the “day after”: the return of hostages, a Gaza stripped of offensive capabilities, continued Israeli security responsibility including a perimeter, and civilian administration not run by Hamas or the PA. He restated longstanding conditions for any PA role: ending payments to attackers, reforming curricula, stopping incitement, and ceasing legal warfare against Israel.

The prime minister also leaned into regional diplomacy, telling the American president that under his leadership the two could re-energize the Abraham Accords—rewarding states that cooperate and isolating those that choose confrontation. He repeated his resistance to a Palestinian state, arguing that recognition after Oct. 7 would “reward terrorists” and undermine Israel’s security.

Give the gift of hope

We practice what we preach:

accurate, fearless journalism. But we can't do it alone.

• On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
• Our program trained more than 100 journalists
• Calling out fake news and reporting real facts

• On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
• Our program trained more than 100 journalists
• Calling out fake news and reporting real facts

Join us.
Support The Media Line. Save democracy.

DONATE

The proposal drew mixed reviews inside Israel. Two ministers from Netanyahu’s Likud party described the initiative as advancing “peace through strength.” But Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi declared: “There will never be a Palestinian state in the land of our forefathers.” Opposition Leader Yair Lapid called the plan “the proper basis for a hostage deal and the end of the war,” while Blue and White–National Unity party chief Benny Gantz urged rapid implementation and indicated he could help Netanyahu pass the agreement over right-wing objections. Some figures on the far right blasted the package as a “total failure,” while families of captives welcomed it as a turning point—a reaction the government will weigh carefully, even if their statement is not determinative.

How Arab and European Capitals Reacted

A joint statement from the foreign ministers of Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt praised the “sincere efforts” by the United States to stop the war. French President Emmanuel Macron, whose government with Saudi Arabia floated a separate outline earlier this year, posted support on X and added a pointed directive: “I expect Israel to engage resolutely on this basis. Hamas has no choice but to immediately release all hostages and follow this plan.” That blend of encouragement and pressure suggests Washington could have partners in the Arab world and Europe willing to help with elements of police training, border control, and financing.

I expect Israel to engage resolutely on this basis. Hamas has no choice but to immediately release all hostages and follow this plan.

Mediators moved quickly. The Qatari prime minister and the head of Egypt’s General Intelligence Service met Hamas negotiators to convey the US proposal, according to regional officials briefed on the session. Hamas promised to study the text and respond, those officials said, though the group has for months tied any comprehensive exchange to a permanent end to the war and full Israeli withdrawal—conditions the White House plan does not grant outright. The demilitarization demand remains a fundamental obstacle as well; the organization has repeatedly rejected calls to disarm.

Why Now, and What’s Different

The push comes after nearly two years of fighting that began with the Oct. 7, 2023, cross-border assault, when Hamas-led gunmen killed civilians and soldiers and dragged captives into Gaza, triggering a sustained Israeli campaign. Earlier pauses produced swaps that returned dozens of hostages in late 2023, but diplomacy stalled. The war reshaped Israel’s external relations, with several European governments recognizing a Palestinian state over Jerusalem’s objections and the International Criminal Court seeking arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials and Hamas leaders. Inside Gaza, the humanitarian toll deepened as infrastructure failed, prices spiked, and displacement surged; Israeli units continued to fight inside Gaza City in recent weeks even as postwar planning accelerated.

Against that backdrop, the US president argued the plan is more viable now because Hamas’ upper ranks have been battered. “Now it’s time for Hamas to accept the terms of the plan that we’ve put forward today,” he said. “And again, this is a different Hamas. Their leadership has been killed three times over. So you’re really dealing with different people.” His team followed the news conference by releasing the full text of the plan, then declined to take questions.

What is new in the proposal is not the idea of an international force or a technocratic administrator—both have been floated since the first cease-fire talks—but the scope and sequencing: a 72-hour clock on hostages; a large, defined prisoner release on the Israeli side; an American-chaired board to manage money, standards, and timelines; and a demilitarization process backed by independent audits and an arms buy-back fund. The plan also nods—cautiously—toward statehood at some point, calling it the Palestinian aspiration while conditioning any political horizon on PA reform and sustained calm. That phrasing may keep Arab partners at the table, while still leaving room for Netanyahu to tell his base he did not concede a sovereign outcome on an external timetable.

The Security Mechanics—and the Fine Print

The ISF would sit at the center of the security design. According to the text, its tasks include training vetted Palestinian police units, keeping transit corridors open, coordinating closely with Israeli and Egyptian forces at the borders, and blocking weapons flows. Jordan and Egypt would offer expertise drawn from their own internal security operations. Israel would progressively transfer areas to ISF control as monitors certify demilitarization benchmarks are met. A deconfliction channel would run between the ISF, IDF, and aid operators to prevent friendly-fire incidents and keep relief moving.

One sensitive clause allows Israel to hold a buffer inside Gaza “for the foreseeable future” while threats persist. The document ties the end of that perimeter to conditions—“standards, milestones, and timeframes linked to demilitarization”—to be agreed by the IDF, the ISF, guarantor states, and the United States. That leaves questions about who has the final say over when Gaza is considered “properly secure,” a point Hamas will seize on and that could become a stress test between Washington and Jerusalem if the perimeter morphs from temporary to open-ended.

On governance, the plan bars Hamas or any allied faction from any role. The interim Palestinian committee would be judged by performance—keeping water flowing, trash collected, clinics supplied, and payrolls met. The Board of Peace would set procurement and transparency rules, administer a fund to pay for public works, and vet contractors. President Trump said the board would tap seasoned city-builders and investors and promote a special economic zone with preferential access to participating markets, arguing that jobs and predictability are the fastest route to social stability.

Hamas’ Choices

For Hamas, the package cuts against public red lines. The group has insisted on a total Israeli pullout before freeing every captive and has rejected demands to disarm. The US text makes demobilization central and explicitly excludes the organization from any political role. It also freezes lines during the first phase rather than compelling Israel to withdraw upfront. Still, the relief surge, amnesty language, and safe-passage offer could split Hamas’ political and military wings, especially if Arab states back the package and Gazans see services returning quickly in neighborhoods labeled “terror-free.”

Mediators will try to leverage that wedge. Qatar and Egypt remain the only channels with direct influence on the group’s decision-making. If Doha and Cairo publicly swing behind the American framework—and if European donors signal money will flow under the board’s oversight—that would increase pressure on Hamas to take the deal or risk being cut out of Gaza’s reconstruction altogether.

What Happens If It Fails

Contingencies are built in. If the group refuses or drags its feet, the plan says reconstruction and services will ramp up in pockets that international monitors certify are free of organized armed activity. That would create islands of recovery, with the ISF and Palestinian police securing roads and crossings. The logic is to show residents tangible gains while isolating hold-outs. The risk is uneven implementation, black-market leakage, and competing authorities—fault lines that have plagued past international missions.

If Hamas rejects the deal … you’d have our full backing to do what you would have to do

Netanyahu’s language about Israel acting “the hard way” if needed suggests a parallel track: stepped-up military pressure in areas where Hamas retains control, paired with an offer to extend the aid-and-rebuilding model as districts are cleared. The US president made clear Washington would support that approach if Hamas says no.

The Politics for Washington

President Trump’s decision to put his name and future time directly on an international board is unusual—and a bet that his personal brand can keep disparate actors moving. By offering a role to Blair and flagging cooperation with institutions like the World Bank, he is also trying to assure donors that governance and procurement will be insulated from patronage and corruption. The White House did not set a public deadline for responses, but diplomats said mediators asked Hamas for an answer quickly, given the 72-hour clock embedded in the first phase.

At home, the proposal allows the American president to claim leadership on a war that has divided US politics, energized protest movements, and strained ties with Arab partners—without forcing an immediate confrontation with the Israeli government over a Palestinian state. The document’s statehood language is aspirational and conditioned, which is acceptable to parts of Israel’s coalition and to Arab capitals that want to keep the PA in the frame.

The Cost of Saying Yes—or No

If Hamas accepts, the immediate outcome would be a nationwide relief operation, a dramatic hostage-for-prisoners exchange, and the arrival of foreign forces and police trainers. Israel would begin to pull back in stages. If it refuses, the fighting will continue while parallel reconstruction rolls out in select districts, with Israel holding a perimeter and the ISF gradually expanding its footprint where it can. Either way, the plan’s insistence on dismantling tunnels and weapons plants places disarmament—and outside verification—at the center of Gaza’s “day after.”

Netanyahu also tied his support to enforcement. “If Hamas rejects your plan, Mr. President, or if they supposedly accepted and then basically do everything to counter it, then Israel will finish the job by itself,” he said. The statement signaled that while Jerusalem is willing to test the framework, it is not surrendering operational freedom if the demobilization track stalls or armed groups try to game the process.

Open Questions

Several issues will determine whether the concept can move from press conference to policy:

• Verification power. Independent monitors will certify demobilization and the destruction of offensive infrastructure. The mechanics—what gets inspected, how often, and with what sanctions—are not yet public.
• Perimeter endgame. The criteria for lifting Israel’s internal buffer lack specificity. Without a clear arbiter and timeline, the perimeter could drift into a long-term reality, inviting friction with Arab partners and Gazans whose daily life depends on access to farmland, fishing zones, and commercial corridors.
• PA reform yardstick. The plan conditions a later handoff to the PA on reforms drawn from prior proposals. Who judges compliance—Washington, the board, Arab guarantors—and what counts as sufficient change will be contentious.
• ISF composition. Which countries contribute troops and police, what their rules of engagement are, and how they coordinate with Israeli units will shape public acceptance in Gaza and the mission’s ability to deter armed cells.
• Money. Reconstruction will require billions of dollars. The board’s governance and procurement rules will have to convince taxpayers in the Gulf, Europe, and North America that funds won’t be siphoned off.
• Hostage list. Some 48-52 captives remain, with roughly 20 alive. The speed and completeness of returns—and the parallel release of prisoners—will set the plan’s political tone from the start.

Even the choreography of Monday’s rollout reflected the stakes and the personalities involved. The event veered off-script at moments before the leaders departed without taking questions. What happens next will be played out in smaller rooms—in Doha and Cairo, at Israel’s security cabinet table, inside Gaza’s bunkers, and at a US-chaired board that does not yet exist but now carries the weight of Washington’s promise.

The American president sounded confident. “The promise of a new Middle East is so clearly within our reach,” he said. “This is the closest we’ve ever come to real peace. Not fake peace, not political fool’s peace.” Whether that promise lands in Gaza’s streets—and not just on a podium in Washington—now turns on decisions by men who still hold guns and by governments deciding how much muscle and money they will put behind the words.

Miriam Metzinger contributed to this report.