By Daily Touch Insights Editorial Team
Editorial Team
View Journalist Profile

WORLD NEWS — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected the latest U.S.-backed Gaza proposal, saying Israeli forces will not withdraw from their current positions in Gaza until Hamas is completely disarmed.

Netanyahu's position puts a major obstacle in the way of the proposed next stage of the Gaza peace process. The U.S.-backed framework envisages Hamas disarmament alongside a phased Israeli withdrawal, but the two sides remain divided over which step should come first.

Key Issue: Israel says Hamas must fully disarm before an Israeli withdrawal, while Hamas has indicated that it expects Israeli forces to stop attacks and withdraw as part of the process leading to disarmament.

Netanyahu's Position

Netanyahu has made clear that Israel will not accept a withdrawal from its current lines in Gaza before what he describes as the complete disarmament of Hamas.

He has also criticized parts of the U.S. proposal, arguing that Israel needs stronger guarantees that Hamas will genuinely give up its military capabilities rather than temporarily suspend them.

The Israeli prime minister's position is supported by members of his right-wing coalition, who have argued that Gaza should not move toward reconstruction or a new political arrangement while Hamas retains its military capabilities.

What the U.S.-Backed Plan Proposes

The proposed framework calls for Hamas to disarm and for Israel to carry out a phased withdrawal, with international and Palestinian security arrangements intended to help maintain stability in Gaza.

The plan also envisages an international stabilization force and a new Palestinian police structure as part of the broader transition.

The intended sequence is designed to prevent a return to large-scale fighting while creating the conditions for reconstruction and a new form of administration in Gaza.

Why the Order of Events Matters

The central disagreement is straightforward but difficult to resolve.

Israel wants Hamas to surrender its weapons and military capabilities before Israeli forces complete their withdrawal.

Hamas, meanwhile, has said that Israeli attacks must stop and Israeli forces must withdraw as part of the process before it gives up its remaining military capabilities.

Both sides therefore face the same fundamental problem: neither wants to make the first major concession without guarantees that the other side will fulfill its commitments.

Why Hamas Disarmament Is So Difficult

Disarmament would represent a fundamental change for Hamas, which has operated as both a political organization and an armed group.

Any agreement requiring Hamas to surrender its weapons would need mechanisms for verifying that weapons, military infrastructure and armed capabilities had genuinely been removed.

The question of who would oversee that process is therefore just as important as the demand itself.

Israel's Security Argument

The Israeli government argues that allowing Hamas to retain military capabilities could create the possibility of another armed conflict.

From Israel's perspective, withdrawal without effective disarmament could leave the country vulnerable to future attacks.

That security concern is at the centre of Netanyahu's insistence that Hamas must be completely disarmed before Israel gives up its current positions.

Humanitarian Concerns Remain

The political deadlock comes as Gaza continues to face severe humanitarian challenges after years of conflict.

Large numbers of Palestinians remain displaced, while damaged infrastructure, limited services and difficult living conditions continue to complicate daily life.

For civilians, delays in reaching a durable political and security arrangement can mean continued uncertainty over movement, reconstruction and access to essential services.

The Role of the United States

The disagreement also creates a difficult situation for Washington.

President Donald Trump has presented the proposed framework as a potential route toward ending the conflict and moving Gaza into a new phase.

Netanyahu's rejection of key elements shows that U.S. diplomatic pressure does not automatically translate into agreement between the parties.

The United States now faces the challenge of persuading both sides that the proposed security and political arrangements can be trusted.

What Happens Next?

The immediate future depends on whether negotiators can find a mechanism that addresses Israel's demand for verifiable disarmament while giving Hamas and Palestinian representatives sufficient guarantees over Israeli withdrawal and the future administration of Gaza.

International involvement could become increasingly important if the parties remain unable to resolve the sequencing dispute on their own.

A successful agreement would require more than a ceasefire. It would need a credible system for security, governance, reconstruction and enforcement.

The Bigger Picture

The dispute illustrates why ending a war can be considerably harder than reaching a temporary pause in fighting.

A lasting settlement requires decisions about who controls territory, who provides security, who governs civilians and how armed groups are dealt with.

The disagreement between Israel and Hamas over disarmament and withdrawal shows that these questions remain unresolved.

Conclusion

Benjamin Netanyahu's latest statement makes Israel's position clear: Israeli forces will not withdraw from their current lines in Gaza until Hamas is completely disarmed.

That position conflicts with the sequencing Hamas has indicated it expects and creates a major obstacle for the U.S.-backed Gaza framework.

Whether the proposal can move forward will depend on whether negotiators can establish enough trust and verification mechanisms for both sides to accept the next stage.

For Gaza's civilians, however, the stakes extend beyond diplomacy. The longer the political and security dispute remains unresolved, the more difficult it becomes to establish lasting stability and begin comprehensive reconstruction.