Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected a U.S.-led Gaza peace plan that Hamas endorsed, saying Israel will not pull its forces out until Hamas fully disarms, according to the supplied AFP report.
The statement marks a fresh public divergence between Netanyahu and President Donald Trump at a moment when both sides are facing pressure to show progress toward ending the war. The report says Netanyahu’s position was aimed at his domestic political base, but the immediate effect is to make the U.S.-backed plan harder to advance.
The key point is simple: Hamas accepted a version of the plan, but Netanyahu did not. The report indicates that the proposal had enough structure to secure Hamas’ endorsement, yet Israel’s leader drew a line at military withdrawal before complete disarmament. That condition is likely to remain one of the central obstacles in any future negotiation.
Netanyahu’s message also reinforces a familiar Israeli demand. Jerusalem has repeatedly argued that any end to the war must prevent Hamas from retaining military power. By tying withdrawal to disarmament, Netanyahu is making that requirement explicit and leaving little room for ambiguity about Israel’s sequencing of concessions.
The U.S. role is equally significant. The AFP report describes the plan as U.S.-led, which means Washington is still trying to shape a diplomatic formula capable of bridging the gap between Israeli security demands and Hamas’ position. Netanyahu’s rejection does not end that effort, but it does show that American leverage has limits when Israeli coalition politics are involved.
The supplied excerpt does not outline the entire plan, the status of hostage negotiations or any timetable for implementation. It does, however, make clear that the diplomatic track is now stuck on one of the longest-running issues in the conflict: whether Israel can be asked to leave Gaza before Hamas is stripped of arms and authority.
For Hamas, endorsement of the proposal may have been intended to strengthen its diplomatic standing or shift pressure onto Israel. For Netanyahu, rejection may be intended to signal resolve at home and abroad. The result is the same either way: no immediate convergence around a peace formula, and a renewed gap between the White House and Jerusalem over the terms of any settlement.
The report does not suggest that either side has abandoned talks altogether. It does show, though, that the political space for a deal remains narrow. As long as Israel insists on disarmament first and Hamas accepts a different sequencing, the path from proposal to ceasefire will stay blocked. The public break also complicates the role of Washington as mediator. If Hamas and Israel are reading the same proposal differently, the U.S. will have to decide whether to push for revisions, pressure one side harder or accept that the current format cannot bridge the gap.
