Netanyahu defends Trump’s 20-point Gaza plan to skeptical hardliners — a risky gamble

By Nick Ravenshade — NENC Media Group
October 2, 2025

JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday publicly defended a U.S.-backed 20-point proposal to end the Gaza war as he faced skeptical and sometimes hostile members of his hard-right coalition, according to Israeli officials and international reports. Netanyahu told ministers the plan — which conditions a ceasefire on the return of hostages, the dismantling of Hamas’s military capabilities and a transitional international body to govern Gaza — offers Israel a route to recover hostages and achieve long-term security objectives, but he stopped short of putting the text to a full cabinet vote amid fierce internal resistance.

The White House unveiled the outline last week after President Donald Trump met Netanyahu in Washington. The document calls for rapid hostage returns as part of an initial ceasefire, the demilitarization of Gaza, and the creation of an international “Board of Peace” to administer the strip temporarily — a proposal that U.S. officials said would include prominent international figures and that the White House has presented as a pragmatic way to stabilise Gaza while sidestepping immediate questions of long-term sovereignty. The plan also contemplates staged Israeli withdrawals and a security architecture to prevent Hamas’s reconstitution.

But the outline has been met with unease and outright hostility from several of Netanyahu’s coalition partners, who view any international supervision or hints of future Palestinian governance as unacceptable. Ultra-nationalist ministers argue the plan risks ceding ground to Palestinian statehood or international oversight of Israeli security, and they have demanded tougher guarantees — or have threatened to resign if the government appears to accept terms they consider a sellout. Netanyahu has sought to thread a narrow political needle: embrace the parts that could win hostages’ release and international backing while keeping open options to resist elements that might constrain Israel’s future actions.

Coalition friction and domestic politics

Netanyahu’s political calculus is at the heart of the controversy. Supporters in his inner circle and some security officials see the U.S. proposal as a way to deliver on two politically indispensable goals: bringing living hostages home and creating a framework that could end large-scale combat operations in Gaza, thereby reducing international pressure and potentially improving Israel’s diplomatic position. In public remarks carried after the White House meeting, Netanyahu framed the plan as consistent with Israel’s military aims and suggested it could “achieve our war aims,” language that he and the U.S. used to reassure domestic audiences.

Yet hardliners have pushed back hard. Figures such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and other far-right ministers have publicly warned that any perceived concession over Gaza’s future or acceptance of an international governing mechanism would be political poison. Israeli analysts and opposition figures warned that by endorsing elements of the U.S. plan, Netanyahu risks inflaming the very partners he needs to keep his coalition intact — a pattern that could leave him politically weakened even if the plan produces early diplomatic dividends. Haaretz and other domestic papers said Netanyahu was trying to “sell” selective parts of the proposal to ministers while reserving veto points that would allow him to retract or renegotiate if domestic backlash proved severe.

Legal and parliamentary questions complicate the picture. Netanyahu has so far avoided a formal cabinet vote on the full 20-point text — a move analysts say is deliberate, allowing him to use the plan’s language publicly and in diplomacy without locking the government into binding commitments that could trigger defections or legal challenges. Hardline ministers have demanded written guarantees and parliamentary scrutiny before allowing Israel’s security services to implement any binding steps that limit military freedom of action. That dynamic leaves the plan politically usable in public diplomacy while raising real doubts about whether it can be executed in full.

International reaction, operational questions and humanitarian stakes

Internationally the response has been mixed. Several Arab states and mediators — Qatar and Egypt among them — engaged swiftly with the U.S. initiative, signalling a willingness to help shuttle terms to Hamas and to pressure its backers. Washington framed the plan as a multilateral, enforceable path to pause the fighting and begin reconstruction and hostage returns; Qatar’s leadership and some Gulf partners were reported to be in active contact with both sides to explore feasibility. But U.N. officials, human-rights groups and many Palestinian leaders warned that the plan, as announced, left critical gaps: it does not offer an immediate roadmap for Palestinian political rights, it places heavy emphasis on demilitarisation and removal of Hamas from governance, and it proposes a governance arrangement some view as tantamount to international trusteeship.

Operationally, the plan’s demands — rapid, verifiable demilitarisation and the return of hostages within tight timetables — pose formidable on-the-ground challenges. Gaza’s urban terrain, embedded militant infrastructure and the fractured nature of armed groups make quick, comprehensive disarmament technically difficult. Military planners caution that unless the deal includes robust, enforceable verification mechanisms and credible guarantors — including on the ground monitors with secure access — demilitarisation pledges could be undermined by local spoilers or by groups that splinter from Hamas. Analysts also note the asymmetry of incentives: while Israel has a strong motive to secure hostage returns, Hamas and other factions may perceive the disarmament timeline as an existential threat, making acceptance politically fraught for its leaders.

Humanitarian actors emphasise another risk: any ceasefire that is not accompanied by immediate, sustained, unfettered access for aid and reconstruction could produce only a temporary lull before violence resumes. The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza has already reached severe levels; agencies say an agreement that prioritises security over rapid restoration of essential services will fail civilians on the ground and could undercut political goodwill. U.N. relief officials and medical charities have urged concrete guarantees for corridors, supplies, fuel and independent monitoring to ensure that a ceasefire translates into tangible relief.

What comes next

The immediate diplomatic rhythm will be frenetic. Doha and Cairo — longstanding mediators with ties to Hamas — are reported to be receiving and relaying the U.S. text to Gaza officials, even as Israeli officials consult with Washington on implementation details and security sequencing. Netanyahu’s tactic appears to be to keep the text flexible enough to court international and Arab support while preserving legal and operational wiggle room at home. That approach could buy time for discreet diplomacy but risks collapsing if hardline ministers publicly withdraw backing or if Hamas rejects the plan outright.

For Netanyahu the political calculation is stark: success would yield returned hostages, an exit from large-scale combat, and international validation — outcomes that could shore up his domestic position. Failure could expose him to recriminations from the right, precipitate a coalition crisis, and plunge Israel into renewed international censure if violence persists. For the United States and its regional partners, the test is whether their combination of incentives, guarantees and on-the-ground leverage is sufficient to make a fast, verifiable ceasefire and demilitarisation credible to both Israelis and Palestinians.

— Reporting by Nick Ravenshade. Sources: Reuters; Al Jazeera; Haaretz; CNN; The Guardian.

Photo: The White House, Public Domain, via Flickr