Netanyahu's Rejection of Trump's Gaza Peace Plan: Background and Ripple Effect Analysis

Executive Summary

Prime Minister Netanyahu's rejection of the withdrawal-disarmament sequence in the Trump administration's Gaza peace roadmap is not a negotiating tactic but a structural matter intertwined with the structure of Israel's coalition government and Netanyahu's own political survival. Given the risk of departure by far-right coalition partners such as Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, and the political constraint posed by Netanyahu's corruption trial, the likelihood that he will withdraw the precondition of disarmament is low. Over the coming months, the most probable outcome is a prolonged stalemate without a clear breakthrough, with the intensity of Israeli military airstrikes serving as the key indicator for gauging any shift in the negotiation phase. The Korean government and businesses need to monitor both the escalation and stalemate scenarios in parallel, while separately tracking Red Sea shipping route risks and developments in U.S. Congressional discussions on military aid.

I. Situational Analysis of the Issue

Netanyahu's Rejection of Trump's Gaza Peace Plan: Situational Analysis

1. Background and Development of the Issue

The Gaza war began with Hamas's surprise attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. At the time, Prime Minister Netanyahu, in an address to parliament, compared Hamas to ISIS [1]. He called for the international community to form a counterterrorism coalition. This statement defined the tenor of the Israeli government's Gaza policy for the following two years.

From the early stages of the war, Netanyahu set the complete elimination of Hamas as his objective. This objective was intertwined with political necessity. Even before the outbreak of the war, he had been indicted on corruption charges [2]. The structure is such that the end of the war would inevitably bring the issue of accountability to the fore. Far-right coalition partners National Security Minister Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Smotrich have wielded substantial influence over policymaking [2]. Both figures have maintained a hardline stance opposing withdrawal from Gaza and the continued existence of Hamas.

U.S. Middle East policy shifted across administrations. The Biden administration prioritized preventing escalation and pursuing diplomatic exit strategies [2]. Mediation on the Lebanese border through Special Envoy Amos Hochstein is a representative example [2]. This approach frequently clashed with Israel's determination to continue military action.

2. Current Situation

The Gaza peace plan presented by President Trump takes an approach different from that of the previous administration. The roadmap is understood to set the phased withdrawal of Israeli forces and the disarmament of Hamas as parallel conditions. Netanyahu did not accept this sequence. He has maintained the position that he will not withdraw until Hamas is fully disarmed. This defines withdrawal not as a precondition for disarmament, but as its outcome.

In response, Hamas has urged the United States to exert direct pressure on Israel to implement the roadmap. Hamas's demand is interpreted as an expectation that the Trump administration will exercise substantive leverage over Israel. This constitutes an unusual request by Hamas regarding the U.S. role as mediator.

At the same juncture, the Israeli military resumed airstrikes on the Gaza Strip. The resumption of military action during a negotiation phase demonstrates that the Netanyahu government continues to keep the military option viable and independent of diplomatic pressure. Within and beyond political circles, this rejection is being assessed as the first substantive rift in the Trump-Netanyahu relationship. Since the two countries had been aligned on policy toward Iran and the expansion of the Abraham Accords since the launch of the Trump administration, the disagreement over the Gaza roadmap is being regarded as an exceptional development.

3. Key Actors and Positions

Netanyahu Government: Insists on Hamas's disarmament as a precondition for withdrawal. The structure is such that the government cannot survive without the support of far-right coalition partners [2]. Political interests tied to the upcoming corruption trial also underlie the maintenance of the hardline stance.

Hamas: Demands that the United States exert pressure on Israel. This is read as an intention to secure negotiating leverage through immediate implementation of the roadmap. Hamas has, in the past as well, asserted the legitimacy of military action by highlighting Israel's occupation of Palestine [1].

Trump Administration: Presented the Gaza peace plan but has faced rejection from Netanyahu. Whether to exercise substantive pressure on Israel is the key issue going forward. A point to watch is whether Washington will accept the political burden of openly pressuring an ally.

Israeli Military: Resumed airstrikes regardless of the negotiation phase. This suggests that the military leadership and political leadership are aligned in their determination to continue military operations.

4. Key Issues

The sequencing of withdrawal and disarmament is the central issue in the negotiations. The Trump roadmap appears to presuppose either simultaneity or withdrawal taking precedence. Netanyahu, by contrast, has fixed the completion of disarmament as a precondition for withdrawal. This sequencing issue is not a mere procedural disagreement. It is a substantive issue that determines whether Hamas survives and the future direction of governance in Gaza.

Whether the United States will exercise leverage over Israel is also a key issue. Hamas has publicly requested Washington's intervention. Whether the Trump administration will actually pressure its ally Israel, or instead accept Netanyahu's conditions, is likely to be the watershed for the implementation of the roadmap going forward.

II. In-Depth Analysis of the Issue

Netanyahu's Rejection of Trump's Gaza Peace Plan: In-Depth Analysis

1. Root Causes of the Issue

Netanyahu's rejection is not a disagreement over negotiating technique. The issue surrounding the sequencing of withdrawal and disarmament is directly linked to structural constraints within the Israeli political system. Netanyahu began the war while under indictment for corruption charges [2]. The trial is still ongoing. Once the war ends, he loses his political shield. If withdrawal takes place without the objective of eliminating Hamas having been achieved, Netanyahu would bear responsibility not only for the October 7 catastrophe but also for the failure of the negotiations. For him, adhering to the disarmament precondition amounts to a strategy for political survival.

The presence of far-right coalition partners is another pillar of the root cause. National Security Minister Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Smotrich have exercised effective veto power over the policymaking process [2]. Neither figure will tolerate a scenario in which Israeli forces withdraw while Hamas remains intact as an organization. Netanyahu's coalition would lose its majority if the two departed. The moment he accepts Trump's roadmap could trigger the collapse of the coalition. As Netanyahu's personal political calculations and the coalition's conditions for survival overlap, the precondition of Hamas's disarmament has hardened not into a bargaining chip but into a non-negotiable political red line.

2. Structural Context

Political Structure: Israel's coalition government system carries a structural vulnerability in which a minority of hardliners can determine the overall direction of policy. Likud alone cannot secure a majority, and the seats held by far-right parties hold the casting vote for the government's survival. This structure is not fundamentally different from the pattern of the late 1990s, when the Rabin assassination following the Oslo Accords led to Netanyahu's rise to power [1]. A political landscape in which even a moderate, negotiation-minded government can have its negotiating momentum neutralized by far-right forces has recurred repeatedly.

Economic Structure: The cost of rebuilding Gaza and the question of establishing a postwar governance system pose substantive obstacles to implementing the roadmap. If Israeli forces withdraw before Hamas is disarmed, the entity governing the Gaza Strip becomes unclear amid a power vacuum. This is also linked to whether Gulf states will participate in funding reconstruction. The sequencing issue in the roadmap ultimately connects to questions of postwar governance in Gaza and the allocation of reconstruction funds.

Security Structure: The resumption of Israeli airstrikes is read as an intent to keep the military option perpetually operable even during the negotiation phase. This is combined with a security logic in which Israel, amid a multilayered standoff with Hezbollah and Houthi rebels, cannot unilaterally lay down its military capabilities even in Gaza [2]. The concern that a surprise attack like that of October 7 could recur without the complete dismantling of Hamas has become the official position of Israel's security establishment.

3. Historical Precedents and Comparable Cases

The collapse of the Oslo peace process is the most direct precedent. Although the Oslo Accords were signed on two occasions, in 1993 and 1995, the negotiating momentum dissipated following the 1995 assassination of Prime Minister Rabin and Netanyahu's rise to power in 1996 [1]. Subsequently, the breakdown of the 2000 Camp David Summit and the outbreak of the Second Intifada brought the peace process itself to a halt [1]. The fact that this pattern—in which Israeli-Palestinian negotiations stall each time Netanyahu returns to the political forefront—has recurred at least three times provides grounds for viewing this rejection of the roadmap not as a coincidental event but as a structural repetition.

The failed mediation on the Lebanese border in 2024 is also a case for comparison. The Biden administration attempted, through Special Envoy Hochstein, to contain the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, but this frequently clashed with the Netanyahu government's determination to pursue military action [2]. The pattern whereby the Israeli government insists on independent military options even when a U.S. administration prioritizes preventing escalation has persisted regardless of changes in administration.

The ceasefire that President Trump referenced during the 2026 Israel-Iran war phase was likewise assessed as merely an "unstable ceasefire with a low likelihood of indefinite extension" [6]. Given that the Trump administration's proposed roadmaps for ending conflicts and achieving peace in the Middle East have repeatedly amounted to mere patching-over without adequately reflecting the fundamental interests of local actors, this rejection of the Gaza roadmap may well follow a similar trajectory.

4. Key Variables in the Development of the Issue

First, the survival of the Netanyahu coalition. Whether Ben-Gvir and Smotrich depart is the primary variable determining whether the roadmap can be accepted. If the coalition collapses, Netanyahu's negotiating latitude could actually shrink amid an early-election phase.

Second, whether the Trump administration exercises leverage over Israel. Hamas has publicly demanded direct U.S. pressure. Whether Trump converts military and economic support into a substantive means of pressure, or instead maintains the existing close alignment with Israel, will be the watershed for the roadmap's implementation.

Third, the intensity of Israeli military action. Whether the resumption of airstrikes during the negotiation phase remains a limited show of force or escalates into expanded ground operations will determine whether the roadmap itself survives.

Fourth, Hamas's willingness and capacity to carry out disarmament. If Hamas actually proceeds with phased disarmament, Netanyahu's precondition argument loses its justification. Conversely, if Hamas delays implementation, Netanyahu's hardline stance gains legitimacy both domestically and internationally.