A 20-point peace proposal put forth by President Trump this week holds the potential to bring an end to the nearly two-year conflict in the Gaza Strip and facilitate the release of the 46 hostages currently held by Hamas. However, this same plan might also signal the conclusion of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s tenure as Israel’s leader.
For the plan, which Israel accepted on Monday, to proceed, Hamas’s assent is still required. This proposal aims to ultimately cease Israel’s military activities, disarm Hamas, and allow for Gaza’s rebuilding under a Palestinian administration supervised by a Trump-led international coalition.
Trump suggested this could be the Israeli prime minister’s “crowning achievement,” yet Netanyahu’s endorsement of the plan could ultimately decide his political future.
Last June, Netanyahu’s right-wing alliance narrowly avoided calls for snap elections that might have dissolved his administration and moved up a poll scheduled for October 2026.
However, by July, his government forfeited its parliamentary majority when two parties departed his coalition, leaving him with only 50 out of 120 seats. This situation could present a substantial risk if another attempt to trigger early elections occurs.
Netanyahu’s party has shown increasing internal divisions, with its hard-right factions threatening to destabilize his government over any compromises made in a deal.
“They anticipated achieving ‘total victory’ on the battlefield, a complete Israeli military occupation, the displacement of millions of Palestinians globally, and ultimately Israeli settlement and annexation of Gaza,” stated John Hannah, a security expert and Randi & Charles Wax senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, in an interview with Digital.
“This new Trump proposal clashes with all their ultimate goals — even if, ostensibly, it commits to fulfilling many of Israel’s primary war objectives, such as the return of all hostages, the disarmament and end of Hamas’s rule, and the complete demilitarization and deradicalization of Gaza,” he further explained.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir — who had resigned in early 2025 due to his opposition to a ceasefire and hostage agreement that resulted in a prior exchange before his reinstatement in March — has explicitly stated his ambition for Gaza’s annexation, the establishment of Israeli settlements, and the total eradication of Hamas.
Trump’s plan, while not explicitly outlining a pathway for any specific outcome, obstructs Israeli annexation initiatives and offers Hamas “amnesty” and an exit route from Gaza if they disarm.
On Tuesday, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich denounced Trump’s proposal as a “significant diplomatic failure,” asserting that it represented “a willful ignorance and disregard for all the lessons learned from October 7th.”
“I believe it will conclude tragically,” he commented in an X post. “A lamentable instance of leadership shirking reality.”
While Netanyahu confronts considerable pressure from within his own party, with some members believing he has compromised on security requirements, he also faces significant public backlash.
His failure to secure a hostage agreement and his ongoing aggressive military actions in Gaza have led numerous Israelis to question whether Netanyahu has prioritized military objectives, and possibly his own political aspirations, above the safe return of hostages held for 725 days.
Hannah remarked that rejecting Trump’s plan would have been “catastrophic” for Netanyahu, considering Israel’s increasing international isolation and the volatile domestic political landscape.
“It is absolutely essential for Israel’s enduring security and, candidly, for Netanyahu’s political survival to maintain the support of the U.S. and Trump,” he stated, observing that Trump is more popular among Israelis than Netanyahu.
Repeated approval ratings suggest that Netanyahu would probably not prevail in an election if it were held soon.
“If forecasting American elections seems difficult, predicting Israeli elections, with their multi-party parliamentary system, is even more challenging,” Richard Goldberg, a senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, informed Digital. “Ultimately, President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu seem more concerned with core issues than political maneuvering, aiming for an agreement that would secure the release of all hostages, compel Hamas to surrender, and safeguard Israel’s lasting security.”
It remains uncertain how Netanyahu’s public standing might be influenced by his endorsement of Trump’s plan, especially if Hamas also accepts it and the hostages are released within 72 hours, as the proposal specifies after a joint accord.
Yair Lapid, Netanyahu’s primary opposition leader and former prime minister, asserted that the biggest impediment to the plan’s success is a “yes, but” attitude.
“The current threat to the plan comes not from those who outright reject it, such as Ben-Gvir or the Iranians, but from those who express conditional agreement with a ‘yes, but’,” he stated on X. “Netanyahu is an experienced and frustrating master of the ‘yes, but.’ Typically, he voices the ‘yes’ in Washington, before cameras at the White House, presenting himself as a pioneering statesman, only to introduce the ‘but’ upon returning home when his ‘base’ reminds him of their expectations.”
Other opposition figures supported Netanyahu’s acceptance of the plan, including Benny Gantz, leader of the Blue and White Party, who declared his party “would not permit trivial political considerations to undermine the plan.”
Although the Israeli public’s reaction to Netanyahu if a deal is finalized remains uncertain, Goldberg contended that the agreement ultimately represents a victory for Israel.
“The specifics are crucial, and we lack comprehensive details, yet from a foundational standpoint, this would be an undeniable triumph for Israel,” Goldberg remarked. “Considering the stipulations for Gaza’s demilitarization and deradicalization, a sweeping reform of the Palestinian Authority, and a route towards Saudi-Israel normalization, all the overarching principles and aims are consistent with Israel’s security imperatives and war aims.”