In fact, just days ago Israeli Prime Minister Benjaman Netanyahu came out in defense of U.S. President Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan. This occurred during an extraordinary cabinet meeting where hardline ministers voiced deep skepticism. The increased cleavages within the Israeli leadership that the meeting signals go beyond the set-up and objectives of this controversial proposal.
In responding to the story, Netanyahu urged his ministers to understand that coordination with Washington is more than just close. He said that keeping a close alliance with the United States is “the biggest priority.” These are laudable goals. Indeed, the proposed plan even aims for the disarmament of Hamas and the demilitarization of Gaza. Both actions would occur under Israeli control.
The coordination is tighter than you think. This can only conclude peacefully, or by violent means, or by both. It was, said Netanyahu, an indication of how urgent the situation was. The blueprint leaves it up to Israel and the U.S. to determine whether Hamas meets the necessary criteria. Netanyahu made clear that these conditions constitute “an impenetrable wall, an entire wall.”
Trump then spoke to us reporters and imposed an aggressive deadline for Hamas. Without going into details, he suggested they had “three to four days” to react positively to the peace plan. The full proposal has drawn widespread criticism for failing to offer specifics on how Hamas would decommission its weapons. This leaves us worried that the plan may not be realistic.
Netanyahu may have been optimistic, significant reservation was expressed by members of his cabinet. Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir called the deal “full of holes” and railed against its terms. Among other things, he claimed that it fails to achieve the administration’s stated war aims and endangers national security. Within his party, he raised serious objections to Prime Minister Sharon’s plans for an Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza. He too raised concerns about the role of international forces.
“I understand you were under pressure, but you shouldn’t have come with such a hole-ridden agreement,” Ben Gvir told Netanyahu during the cabinet meeting. His concerns were echoed by Bezalel Smotrich, who labeled the plan a “resounding diplomatic failure for Israel that will end in tears.”
Netanyahu continued to double down on his plan, focusing on its upsides. He thinks it presents “a very large opportunity here” for Israel. His statement confirmed what he had previously believed—that the controversial proposal is indeed in Israel’s strategic interests, even if his own cabinet members disagree.
Even now, the Israeli cabinet has not officially voted on the proposal. On top of that, they haven’t yet set a date for the vote. Accompanying this delay is a sense of confusion about the plan’s adoption, including among ministers who themselves have different views on what it means.
Meanwhile, diplomatic efforts continue as Qatari, Egyptian, and Turkish officials engage with Hamas negotiators to discuss their response to the U.S.-led initiative. The participation of these regional players makes the already precarious situation that much more complex.
