The 20-Point Plan and the Momentum for Peace

Hamas faced a strategic dilemma: it understood that Netanyahu, Smotrich, and Ben Gvir—the Israeli government as a whole—were counting on Hamas’s refusal. Accepting Trump’s proposal, even conditionally, therefore became a rational choice.

Trump’s 20-point plan remains deliberately vague—more a set of guiding principles than a detailed agreement. Nonetheless, compared with the situation before its presentation, it represents a significant shift and potential breakthrough.

Facts on the Ground
 

Before the plan was even presented, the United States declared unequivocally that there would be no Israeli annexation of the West Bank, not even partial. The withdrawal from Gaza is to be gradual, which poses many practical challenges, but it does mean Israel will withdraw. No less important, Trump has distanced himself from the so-called “voluntary migration” or tahjir plan. Gaza’s residents remain in Gaza. Netanyahu had previously embraced that plan, turning it into a central goal of his government. That is now off the table. Even before the plan’s publication, several crucial political facts had already been established.

The plan still leaves many issues unresolved, particularly regarding implementation, but its direction is clear: toward de-escalation and an eventual end to Israel’s direct occupation of Gaza. Consequently, this might lead to a political shift in Israel and a political horizon to reach an overall deal.

How the Change Occurred
 

The turning point came after Israel’s failed strike in Doha, which sent political shockwaves across the region. Shortly afterward, Netanyahu’s remarks about a “Greater Land of Israel” alarmed Arab leaders and accelerated diplomatic activity. Within days, an Arab-Islamic emergency summit convened in Qatar, where Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi delivered a speech that fundamentally reshaped the regional context.

Al-Sisi warned that the continued occupation of Gaza or any mass flight of Palestinians into Egypt would nullify the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and collapse the Abraham Accords. The message to Washington was clear: Israel’s current path threatened to destabilize the entire Middle East.

This probably brought Trump’s advisers to conclude that a new approach was essential. That assessment led directly to the pressure campaign on Netanyahu to accept the 20-point framework.

Hamas’s Dilemma and Decision
 

From Hamas’s perspective, one central obstacle was that the movement must release all hostages before the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces. This condition generated deep hesitation and internal debate. Still, the movement was under immense pressure—from Gaza’s population, from Qatar and Turkey, and from the broader Arab and Islamic world—to accept an end to the war and begin reconstruction.

As anticipated, Hamas ultimately responded with a conditional “yes, but…” — an acceptance in principle accompanied by demands for clarifications and amendments. The response was expected, consistent with earlier assessments that the movement would seek to balance between avoiding total isolation and maintaining internal legitimacy. Hamas’s decision reflects a pragmatic calculation: the organization cannot endure further devastation or political marginalization, yet it must demonstrate that it did not surrender unconditionally.

Trump’s Response and the New Power Dynamic
 

Immediately after Hamas published its statement, President Trump released the text verbatim and followed it with a public call on Israel to cease fire. The sequence was not coincidental. It made clear that Trump is now dictating the course of events. The Israeli government, and Netanyahu personally, were left reacting rather than leading.

This marks a profound shift. What was once framed as U.S.-Israeli coordination has turned into a clear hierarchy, with Washington in command. For Netanyahu, this is both a diplomatic humiliation and a political warning: his leverage, domestically and internationally, has sharply diminished.

The War’s End and Israel’s Political Crossroads
 

If current dynamics continue, the war is effectively entering its final stage. In this case the next and most consequential arena will no longer be in Gaza but Israel’s internal politics. Netanyahu’s coalition stands on fragile ground. Should Smotrich and Ben-Gvir leave the government, the coalition could collapse, triggering early elections. Netanyahu will then attempt to cast himself as the only stable leader, absorbing votes from his far-right partners while courting the center and relying on ultra-Orthodox allies to reach a narrow majority.

At the same time, he is expected to push for changes to lower the electoral threshold, allowing smaller right-wing factions to reenter the Knesset and fragment the opposition. He may also seek to undermine the legitimacy of elections, challenge Arab voter participation, or even provoke new military tensions to restore a “security agenda.”

The Israeli opposition, for its part, remains fragmented. Many of its leaders share similar positions to Netanyahu on key policy issues—settlement expansion, relations with Arab citizens and with the ultraorthodox Jews. Unless the opposition unites around a shared democratic and civic vision, Netanyahu’s political survival instincts could once again prevail. Whether this transition becomes an opportunity for recovery or another descent into chaos will depend primarily on Israel’s internal choices in the months ahead.

A New Phase
 

The regional landscape has shifted dramatically. Trump’s plan, though flawed and ambiguous, has imposed new strategic realities:

·         Israel is committed on paper to withdrawal and to recognizing Palestinian self-determination.

·         Arab and Islamic states, led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have taken ownership of Gaza’s reconstruction process.

·         Hamas’s conditional acceptance prevents its total isolation but ensures that the Palestinian Authority and Arab states will shape the “day after.”

The plan does not end the conflict or solve the deeper issues of occupation, legitimacy, or accountability. But it has the potential to close one destructive chapter and to open a new, uncertain political phase—one defined less by military confrontation and more by domestic and regional bargaining.

At the same time, the implementation of this framework remains highly uncertain. It depends on an unpredictable and undemocratic American president, and on two actors on the ground—Netanyahu and Hamas—who both have limited real interest in a comprehensive deal. What truly matters, therefore, is the direction of travel: the steady pressure and persistence of the Arab world, together with sustained U.S. engagement, are the only forces capable of turning this fragile framework into lasting political reality.

Conclusion
 

Two years after October 7, after unimaginable loss and devastation, Hamas’s conditional acceptance of Trump’s 20-point framework can bring the war to an end. Much of what follows will depend on Israel’s political realignment, effective leverage of the Arab and Muslim world on Trump and American consistent involvement. These factors brought together can bring the Israelis, but also the Palestinians, to translate principles into governance and reconstruction.

For the first time in years, the prospect of change—imperfect and fragile as it may be—exists. What remains to be seen is whether Israel, Palestine, and their respective leaderships will seize this moment or squander it once more.

Dr. Eran Tzidkiyahu is a French-Israeli scholar. His PhD from the Paris institute of political sciences deals with religious radicalism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He teaches the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and is a member of the secretariat of A Land for All: Two States. One Homeland movement. Tzidkiyahu is also active in preventing gender-based violence.