Overview: Netanyahu’s stance after Washington
In a rapid stream of statements following a high-profile visit to Washington, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said point-blank that an agreement to create a Palestinian state was never on the table in his discussions with President Donald Trump. In a parallel message, he framed the war against Hamas as nearing a protracted phase, with Israel prepared to stay in a substantial part of Gaza to secure its objectives. A video posted on his social networks portrayed the meeting as an excellent success and underscored his view that Washington would offer unwavering support for Israel’s military aims if Hamas refused the proposed plan.
According to remarks cited by Haaretz, Netanyahu asserted that the plan would allow the Israeli army to remain in most of Gaza, a stance he presented as essential to neutralizing Hamas and restoring regional security. When pressed about a potential Palestinian state, he replied unequivocally that it was not part of the agreement and that Israel’s opposition to statehood for a Palestinian entity remained firm, a position he claimed Washington understood.
Merkel’s praise and the hostage dimension
In Berlin, Chancellor Friedrich Merz met with relatives of German hostages held by Hamas, using the occasion to call for their immediate release and to describe Trump’s plan as the best chance to end the Gaza war since the October 7 attacks. A spokesperson for the chancellery quoted Merz as emphasizing that Hamas must approve the plan and clear a path toward peace. Merz’s comments also highlighted a broader objective: ensuring that all hostages – including German citizens – are returned to their families.
Merz added that Israel would press ahead with its security operations but that the plan envisages a framework for stabilizing the region as a political process unfolds on the ground. This framing, he suggested, could help prevent a broader collapse of regional security while safeguarding human lives.
France and Spain weigh in on the plan
The French government expressed a cautious and constructive stance, welcoming the Trump peace plan as a potential pathway to end the war in Gaza. A Foreign Ministry statement urged the parties to engage promptly and to work toward a sustainable peace that respects Palestinian self-determination and Israeli security. France signaled its readiness to collaborate with the United States, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and other partners to implement the plan.
Spain’s prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, likewise voiced support for the initiative, emphasizing the urgency of ending violence, freeing all hostages, and ensuring civilian aid access to Gaza. Tom Fletcher, the UN’s humanitarian affairs chief, acknowledged in a post on X that the plan opens new possibilities to deliver relief, while stressing the need for practical, on-the-ground coordination to translate those possibilities into tangible aid for civilians.
Gaza residents react with caution and fear
Across the Gaza Strip, reactions were mixed and largely cautious. Some residents viewed the plan as a glimmer of hope but warned that commitments without guarantees were insufficient. A Palestinian worker in Beit Lahya, displaced by fighting, said that without credible assurances of a lasting halt to bombardments, any plan would struggle to gain traction with the Hamas leadership. Others in Gaza, echoing sentiments heard by AFP reporters, warned that previous offers had demanded concessions without durable guarantees, a pattern that has bred skepticism among those living under the ongoing crisis.
In Al-Zawaida and other areas, residents stressed that the paramount demand remains an immediate end to fighting, safe passage for humanitarian aid, and the release of prisoners. While they acknowledged the international attention and diplomacy surrounding the plan, many urged patience and insisted that real progress would require more than rhetorical support from world powers.
What the plan entails and possible paths forward
The plan presented by President Trump envisions a phased approach: a security and political framework that may involve an international stabilization presence as Israeli forces adjust their deployment; a future framework for governance in Gaza, potentially with limited Palestinian authority under international oversight; and a negotiated end to hostilities tied to the gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from populated zones as conditions permit. Proponents say the arrangement could create space for humanitarian relief, rebuild critical infrastructure, and create a platform for long-term security cooperation. Critics, however, caution that without Hamas’s buy-in and enforceable guarantees, the plan risks offering a blueprint for continued stalemate rather than a lasting peace.
Conclusion: A fragile pivot toward peace
As international leaders publicly back the plan, the real test lies in Hamas’s response and the ability of all parties to deliver on guarantees, especially for hostages and civilians on the ground. Netanyahu’s insistence on keeping strategic depth in Gaza, Merz’s call for hostage release, and France and Spain’s diplomatic support together frame a moment of precarious opportunity. Whether this plan translates into a durable ceasefire or fades amid competing demands remains one of the most critical questions facing the region in the days to come.
