President Trump’s latest plan to end the war in Gaza is dropping bombshells, and not the kind Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might have hoped for, according to The New York Post.
According to reports from Israeli media, this ambitious U.S. proposal, unveiled to allies at the United Nations on Tuesday, demands significant and painful concessions from Israel while outlining a pathway to possible Palestinian statehood, a gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, and a firm exclusion of Hamas from any future governance.
Let’s rewind to Tuesday, when Trump presented this plan to allies at the U.N., setting the stage for a diplomatic showdown. The full scope, detailed in 21 points by the Times of Israel on Saturday, hasn’t even been shared with Hamas yet.
But already, the U.S. is leaning hard on Qatar to pressure Hamas into agreement, hoping to see progress in the coming days.
Now, here’s the kicker—Israeli Channel 12 reported on Saturday that Israel is expected to make compromises that directly contradict Netanyahu’s long-standing stance.
He’s been crystal clear: no role for the Palestinian Authority in postwar Gaza, full Israeli control instead. Yet Trump’s plan pushes for the Palestinian Authority to take on governing power after a transition period overseen by an international body.
The Palestinian Authority, established under the Oslo Accords in 1994 and led by Mahmoud Abbas, is recognized internationally and holds limited sway in parts of the West Bank.
It once administered Gaza too, until Hamas seized control after the 2006 elections. Trump’s blueprint, however, insists that Hamas be shut out of any future structure, which is one point conservatives can likely cheer.
But let’s not pop the champagne just yet—Netanyahu’s dug his heels in against the Palestinian Authority’s involvement, and for good reason from a security standpoint.
Israel’s been burned before by ceding control, and many on the right see this as a risky gamble. Still, Washington argues, per Channel 12, that Arab nations won’t pressure Hamas to release Israeli hostages without some Palestinian Authority role in the mix.
Under Trump’s vision, a transitional government would handle daily services in Gaza, supervised by a new international body until the Palestinian Authority reforms itself. There’s even chatter about former British Prime Minister Tony Blair stepping in as an interim administrator. Talk about a blast from the past—let’s hope he brings more than just nostalgia to the table.
The plan also calls for a phased withdrawal of Israeli Defense Forces from Gaza, a move that’s sure to raise eyebrows among those who prioritize boots-on-the-ground security.
Add to that a provision allowing anyone who left Gaza to return, a sharp pivot from Trump’s earlier musings about temporary relocation. It’s a mixed bag, and you can bet conservatives will be watching every step.
While no direct quotes from Trump or Netanyahu are floating around in the reports, the tension is palpable through the summaries provided by Channel 12. Their take on the “heavy pressure” from the U.S. on Qatar to sway Hamas speaks volumes about the high stakes. If that’s not a diplomatic arm-twist, what is?
Meanwhile, drama unfolded on Friday at the United Nations General Assembly, where delegates walked out during Netanyahu’s speech in protest.
It’s a stark reminder of the global divide on this issue, and a signal that Israel’s leader isn’t winning any popularity contests abroad. But for many on the right, this just fuels the narrative of Israel standing tall against a biased international crowd.
Netanyahu’s got a crucial meeting with Trump at the White House on Monday, and you can bet this plan will dominate the agenda. Will he bend under the weight of these concessions, or push back against what many conservatives see as a dangerous overreach? The stakes couldn’t be higher for Israel’s security and regional stability.
Let’s be real—Trump’s plan has some merits, like sidelining Hamas, which is a non-negotiable for any sane policy in the region. But handing even a sliver of control to the Palestinian Authority, an entity with a patchy track record, feels like playing with fire. Conservatives will want ironclad guarantees that this won’t backfire into another security nightmare.
For those of us skeptical of progressive foreign policy experiments, the idea of an international body overseeing Gaza’s transition sounds like a recipe for endless meddling.
Yet, there’s an argument for pragmatism—getting Arab states on board to pressure Hamas over hostages could be a game-changer. It’s a tightrope walk, and Israel’s safety can’t be the bargaining chip.
The return policy for Gazans also raises practical questions—how do you ensure security while opening the gates? Trump’s shift from earlier relocation talk shows he’s listening, but conservatives will demand vetting processes that don’t compromise Israel’s borders. It’s not about shutting doors; it’s about smart locks.