Israeli leader endorses U.S. president’s ‘immediate end to the conflict’ plan, which pairs a full hostage release with international oversight of a Palestinian technocratic committee in Gaza

WASHINGTON — A day after huddling at the White House, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threw his weight behind President Donald Trump’s new proposal to end Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza, calling it “a plan that can achieve our war aims” and urging Hamas to accept terms that would pause combat and free hostages.

The framework, unveiled Monday, calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities if both sides sign on and for the rapid release of all remaining Israeli hostages in Gaza, in exchange for a broad prisoner release by Israel. In a bid to stabilize postwar Gaza, the proposal would stand up a technocratic Palestinian committee to administer the territory’s day-to-day affairs, overseen by an international supervisory board chaired by Trump and joined by other global figures, according to U.S. officials.

Netanyahu appeared at the White House alongside Trump to voice support, framing the plan as a way to guarantee that “Gaza never again poses a threat to Israel.” The endorsement marks the most explicit public alignment between the two men since Israel launched its campaign in the enclave after the Hamas-led attacks of October 2023. Hamas has said it is reviewing the terms; Israeli officials insist the clock is ticking.

Key to the American blueprint is sequencing. Under the document circulated to regional mediators and allies, the guns would fall silent, hostages would begin to come home within 48 to 72 hours of a mutual signature, and Israeli forces would begin a phased repositioning inside Gaza—paired with intrusive security guarantees intended to interdict arms smuggling and prevent Hamas from reconstituting a military apparatus.

The governance track is designed to be both narrow and temporary. Washington envisions a nonpartisan Palestinian committee of vetted professionals to run essential services, oversee reconstruction tenders, and coordinate humanitarian deliveries. The committee would report to an international board—dubbed by aides a “Board of Peace”—that Trump would chair. Former British prime minister Tony Blair is among the international figures under consideration for the panel, people familiar with the discussions said.

The plan sidesteps, for now, the thorniest political questions by excluding Hamas from any governmental role and by conditioning any broader political process—up to and including a pathway to eventual Palestinian statehood—on benchmarks such as the disarmament of militants and reforms by the Palestinian Authority. It also offers targeted amnesty for Hamas members who lay down arms, subject to verifiable decommissioning, a clause likely to draw fire from hard-liners in Netanyahu’s coalition.

After months of strained ties, Monday’s tableau offered a glimpse of renewed coordination. Trump, who cast the moment as a chance to “turn the page,” argued that personal stewardship of the oversight body would keep pressure on all sides to deliver. Netanyahu, playing to an Israeli public exhausted by rocket alerts and funerals, insisted that the plan enables Israel to meet its objectives by bringing hostages home and dismantling Hamas’s ability to govern or wage war.

Arab capitals reacted with cautious approval. Officials in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan have privately signaled that an internationally backed technocratic interregnum could be a workable bridge to longer-term arrangements—provided Israel’s military footprint meaningfully recedes and Gazans see tangible relief. Qatar, a key mediator with leverage over Hamas’s political leaders, has engaged on modalities for the hostage-prisoner exchange and for vetting members of the proposed Gaza committee, regional diplomats said.

For Hamas, the document presents stark choices. Accepting would require the group to release all remaining hostages and acquiesce to a supervisory structure that shuts it out of governance while demanding an end to rocket production and tunnel reconstruction. Rejecting would risk giving Israel and its partners a rallying case for intensified operations. Early Tuesday, Hamas officials said the proposal was being reviewed “in good faith,” even as Islamic Jihad and other factions denounced it as a Western-imposed diktat.

Inside Israel’s war cabinet, the politics are no less complex. Netanyahu must keep far-right allies on board while selling a plan that contemplates Israeli troop repositioning and international oversight. Analysts noted that the prime minister has sought edits that tighten disarmament language and slow any drawdown, moves aimed at insulating him from accusations of capitulation. Opposition leaders, while welcoming movement on the hostages, warned against indefinite Israeli responsibility for Gaza’s civilian needs without a clear end state.

Humanitarian agencies and rights groups responded with a mix of relief and skepticism. The promise of an immediate halt to strikes and ground operations—if realized—would open corridors for medical evacuations and the surge of food, water and fuel into shattered neighborhoods. But aid groups cautioned that any pause without durable access guarantees and deconfliction mechanisms could prove fleeting, leaving civilians whiplashed between lulls and renewed bombardment. Reconstruction, they said, hinges on demining, import permissions for heavy equipment, and a transparent tendering process that shutters the war economy.

Washington’s proposed prisoner exchange is sweeping. Once all Israeli hostages are accounted for, Israel would free hundreds of long-sentence prisoners and more than a thousand detainees seized since October 2023, including women and minors, according to people who have seen the document. Remains repatriations would be included, aiming to resolve dozens of anguished family cases on both sides.

The plan’s success will ultimately hinge on enforcement—always the Achilles’ heel of Gaza arrangements. The international board would be tasked with certifying milestones, refereeing disputes, and coordinating donor flows. Trump’s decision to personally chair the body is meant to signal sustained attention from Washington and to corral a cast of stakeholders—including European partners and key Arab states—who have often worked at cross-purposes.

Yet unanswered questions crowd the horizon: how long the transitional phase would last; who picks the Palestinian technocrats and how they gain legitimacy on the ground; what precise security architecture replaces large-scale Israeli maneuvers; and whether the Palestinian Authority—beleaguered and distrusted in both Gaza and the West Bank—can reform fast enough to reclaim a role. Each ambiguity is a potential tripwire.

For now, the political calendar is colliding with war weariness. Two years after the October 7 attacks, Israel faces mounting international pressure over civilian casualties and spiraling displacement in Gaza, while Hamas’s military wing has absorbed heavy losses but retains clandestine cells capable of sporadic attacks. The Biden-to-Trump transition in Washington reoriented diplomatic gears; this latest push attempts, at minimum, to engineer a humanitarian and political off-ramp before the conflict metastasizes further.

If the plan advances, early markers will come quickly: verification teams moving into place; initial hostage releases; a visible scale-up of aid; and the naming of a Gaza committee with a mandate narrow enough to be tolerable to Israelis and strong enough to function for Palestinians. If it stalls, the White House and Jerusalem are already telegraphing a fallback—renewed Israeli military operations “to finish the job,” as Netanyahu put it—with the risk that another cycle of escalation buries diplomatic momentum.

The coming days will test not just whether Hamas says yes, but whether all the parties can accept a plan that tries to freeze the battlefield while rearranging the political chessboard above it. For families waiting on hostages, and for civilians in Gaza waiting on quiet and electricity, the difference between breakthrough and breakdown will be measured in hours, not weeks.