Peace Plan Stalls: Netanyahu Demands Hamas Disarm First, Reversing Trump's Phased Approach
Netanyahu rejected Trump's phased Gaza peace plan, insisting Hamas fully disarm before Israeli withdrawal. The reversal threatens months of negotiation work.
August 10, 2026 · Source: NPR
In early August 2026, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly rejected President Trump's 15-point Gaza peace plan, demanding that Hamas be "genuinely disarmed" before Israeli forces withdraw from Gaza. This contradicted Trump's earlier announcement that his Board of Peace had brokered a "historic agreement" for Hamas's complete disarmament just days before.
The disagreement centers on sequence. Trump's plan envisioned disarmament and withdrawal as linked, phased steps: both sides move together, weapons get handed to an international policing force, Israeli troops pull back as Hamas disarms. Netanyahu is insisting on the opposite order: Hamas must give up its weapons first, completely and verifiably, before any Israeli withdrawal.
This matters because it's not just a negotiating tactic. It's a fundamental deadlock. Hamas has told NPR it will only hand over weapons if Israel withdraws first. Netanyahu faces an October 27 election with his coalition at risk of losing its majority, a pressure that may be hardening his position. Meanwhile, Israel still controls roughly 70% of Gaza according to Palestinian officials and aid agencies, prolonging the humanitarian crisis.
Why This Breaks Down Trust
A phased agreement only works when both sides believe the other will follow through. If one side must disarm completely before the other moves, the disarmed side is left vulnerable. If the other side must withdraw while weapons remain, it feels unsafe. The Common Good Party's position on Israel and Gaza is clear: Security for Israel. Dignity for Palestinians. Accountability for both, under the same international law that applies to everyone else.
That means both sides answer to the same standard. Not one side's security first, the other's later. And it means negotiated settlements require mechanisms that protect both: international oversight, verification protocols, clear timelines, and consequences when either side breaks the deal.
This stalemate is exactly why that framework matters. Without shared accountability and equal protections under law, phased agreements collapse the moment one side sees advantage in stepping back.