Israel’s refusal to withdraw before Hamas fully disarms exposes a fundamental dispute over sequencing and threatens to stall Washington’s months-long effort to turn the Gaza ceasefire into a broader political settlement.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected a key element of U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest Gaza peace initiative, insisting that Israeli forces will not withdraw from the territory until Hamas has been fully disarmed.
The decision represents a significant setback for Washington’s attempt to advance the next phase of a peace process launched in September 2025 and underscores the widening gap between the Israeli government and its closest ally over how the conflict should ultimately be brought to an end.
At the centre of the disagreement is the sequencing of two of the most sensitive provisions in the American proposal: the disarmament of Hamas and the withdrawal of Israeli troops.
The latest U.S.-backed framework envisages a process in which Hamas relinquishes its weapons while Israeli forces progressively withdraw and an international stabilisation mechanism assumes a greater role in Gaza. Netanyahu, however, has made clear that Israel will not accept a withdrawal based merely on commitments or partial disarmament. He is demanding that Hamas be demonstrably and fully disarmed first.
Hamas has taken essentially the opposite position. The group has indicated willingness to place weapons under arrangements involving a U.S.-backed Palestinian administration, but maintains that Israel must first halt military operations, implement its withdrawal commitments and meet other obligations under the existing agreement.
The dispute therefore leaves the negotiations confronting a familiar but increasingly difficult dilemma: neither side is prepared to surrender its principal source of leverage before the other acts.
Trump first unveiled his broader 20-point Gaza proposal on September 29, 2025. The framework called for a ceasefire, the release of hostages held by Hamas in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, the demilitarisation of Gaza, a staged Israeli withdrawal and the creation of a transitional system of governance overseen internationally.
An initial agreement subsequently produced a ceasefire in October 2025, but the process has struggled to progress decisively into its more politically complex stages. The question of Hamas’s weapons, Israel’s military presence and Gaza’s future administration has remained at the heart of the deadlock.
Netanyahu’s latest position is particularly consequential because the United States had recently been signalling renewed optimism.
Trump had presented developments surrounding the disarmament negotiations as evidence that an agreement was moving closer. But Israeli officials had never fully endorsed the latest arrangements, while Netanyahu continued to emphasise that Israel would retain freedom of action until its security objectives were satisfied.
The Israeli prime minister is also operating under intense domestic political pressure.
Hardline members of his governing coalition have opposed concessions that could allow Hamas to survive as an organised military or political force. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has argued that Gaza should not move towards reconstruction until Hamas has been completely dismantled, reinforcing pressure on Netanyahu not to accept a compromise interpreted by his right-wing partners as premature.
For Israel, the central argument remains security. Netanyahu’s government maintains that any withdrawal occurring before Hamas is fully disarmed could allow the organisation to rebuild its military capabilities and eventually re-establish control in Gaza.
For Washington, however, an indefinite Israeli military presence creates another problem: it makes it considerably harder to establish the transitional security and political structures intended to replace both Hamas rule and direct Israeli control.
That tension goes to the heart of the current diplomatic impasse.
The United States is effectively attempting to construct a simultaneous process in which Israeli withdrawal, Palestinian governance, international security assistance and Hamas demilitarisation reinforce one another. Netanyahu’s position instead demands a sequential process in which Hamas’s military capability is eliminated before Israel gives up its territorial leverage.
Conditions inside Gaza add further urgency.
Despite the ceasefire framework, Israeli strikes and other episodes of violence have continued, while much of Gaza’s population remains displaced and extensive areas of the territory have been devastated by years of war. Israeli forces continue to control large parts of the enclave.
For Palestinians, continued uncertainty over withdrawal also complicates reconstruction and any transition towards civilian government. For Israel, reconstruction without an enforceable security arrangement raises fears that resources and infrastructure could once again support Hamas.
International actors therefore face the difficult task of designing a mechanism capable of satisfying both demands simultaneously.
A multinational stabilisation force is one element of the U.S. strategy. Israel had previously agreed to permit an international force to enter parts of Gaza, indicating that Jerusalem was prepared to accept some external security involvement under carefully defined conditions.
But an international force can only operate effectively if the parties agree on its authority, geographical presence and relationship with both Israeli troops and Palestinian institutions.
Those questions remain unresolved.
The confrontation also marks a potentially important moment in relations between Trump and Netanyahu. The two leaders have frequently aligned on regional security issues, yet Gaza increasingly demonstrates that their strategic priorities are not identical.
Trump is seeking a negotiated settlement that can be presented as the culmination of a major American diplomatic initiative. Netanyahu remains primarily focused on ensuring that any post-war arrangement prevents Hamas from reconstituting itself as a military threat.
Those objectives are not necessarily incompatible, but the disagreement over timing has made them increasingly difficult to reconcile.
The immediate future of the peace process will therefore depend on whether American mediators can devise guarantees strong enough to persuade Israel that Hamas’s disarmament is irreversible while simultaneously convincing Hamas that an Israeli withdrawal will actually take place.
Without such guarantees, the negotiations risk becoming trapped in a circular dispute: Israel will not withdraw until Hamas disarms, while Hamas will not fully disarm until Israel withdraws.
After months of U.S.-led diplomacy, that sequencing problem has emerged as one of the most formidable obstacles to a lasting settlement.
Israel’s rejection does not necessarily mean the peace initiative has collapsed. But it substantially raises the political cost of moving forward and leaves Washington confronting the most difficult stage of its Gaza strategy: transforming a fragile ceasefire architecture into a durable security and political order.
