Since the outset of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, regional diplomatic efforts to broker a ceasefire have been in motion.
Over the past two years, the negotiations have taken many twists and turns, resulting in only two brief truces, totalling just 64 days – both of which were broken by Israel.
While those ceasefires allowed for limited prisoner exchanges between Israel and Palestinian factions, they ultimately failed to achieve a permanent end to the war.
Throughout the negotiations – mediated by Qatar, Egypt and the United States – the core differences between Hamas and Israel have remained unresolved.
The Palestinian side has consistently maintained five key principles for any agreement: a permanent end to the war, a full Israeli withdrawal, the flow of humanitarian aid, a prisoner exchange and the reconstruction of Gaza.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on
Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
By contrast, Israel has remained vague in its objectives, frequently shifting its stated war aims.
While the release of Israeli captives has remained a top priority, officials have also conditioned any end to the war on a range of demands – including retaining full security control over Gaza, dismantling Hamas, and expelling its leadership.
For much of the negotiation period, both sides worked within a phased ceasefire framework, which envisioned a gradual implementation of commitments leading to a complete cessation of hostilities.
However, that framework was scrapped last month when the US sought a new comprehensive framework, culminating in Monday’s announcement of a “peace deal” from the White House.
Middle East Eye breaks down how this latest proposal compares to previous initiatives, and how closely it meets the demands of the warring parties.
Timeline of talks
In January 2024, mediators introduced a three-stage framework agreement aimed at ending the war in Gaza.
Under the first phase, a temporary truce would be enacted, during which both sides would fulfil specific obligations before progressing to the next stage.
These obligations included the release of elderly, female and ill Israeli captives in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. The phase also involved a partial Israeli military withdrawal and a partial easing of the siege on Gaza.
The second phase envisioned further prisoner exchanges, this time involving Israeli men in return for a larger number of Palestinian detainees.
During this stage, an official declaration of the end of hostilities would be made while Israel was expected to complete a full withdrawal from Gaza.
In the final phase, Hamas would release remaining Israeli captive soldiers in exchange for additional Palestinian prisoners. This phase would also mark the beginning of Gaza’s reconstruction.
Netanyahu thwarted seven Gaza ceasefire deals, Israeli report finds
Read More »
After months of back-and-forth negotiations, both sides agreed to a version of the framework in January 2025.
However, after the prisoner swaps of the first phase were carried out, Israel began to violate the terms of the agreement – starting with restrictions on the delivery of humanitarian aid and a refusal to adhere to the agreed withdrawal timeline.
On 18 March, Israel launched a series of simultaneous air strikes across the Gaza Strip, killing 400 people in a single attack and effectively collapsing the ceasefire.
Since then, mediators have struggled to move the parties into the second phase of the original agreement.
Israel later decided to abandon the phased approach to the deal.
Then, in May, US envoy Steve Witkoff presented a new proposal that departed from the phased approach. It proposed a 60-day truce during which Hamas would release around half of the remaining captives – 10 alive and 18 deceased – within the first seven days.
The proposal also included a promise to begin talks aimed at ending the war.
Hamas accepted the proposal in principle but, citing concerns over the lack of guarantees preventing Israel from resuming the war after the exchange, suggested modifications. These included staggering the release of captives throughout the 60-day truce period.
In August, the Palestinian movement accepted another proposal, described as “almost identical” to one previously approved by Israel, which also included a staggered release schedule.
Israel responded by announcing plans for a full military occupation of the Gaza Strip, which it later began.
In early September, Witkoff presented a fresh proposal.
This offer included the release of all 48 remaining captives in exchange for a temporary ceasefire, an end to the Israeli operation to fully occupy Gaza, the release of between 2,500 and 3,000 Palestinian prisoners, and the commencement of negotiations on the broader conditions for ending the war – including Hamas’s disarmament and full Israeli withdrawal.
When Hamas’s negotiation team met in Doha to discuss the deal, Israel bombed them in their residence, but failed to assassinate any of them. The talks froze afterwards.
Departing from previous agreements
On Monday, the United States unveiled a new proposal – the so-called “peace plan”.
The 20-point outline marks a significant departure from previous proposals.
It introduces a new set of conditions that had not been part of earlier discussions but have long been advocated by Israel.
These include governance of Gaza without either the Palestinian Authority or Hamas, the “deradicalisation” of the territory, the disarmament of Hamas and other related demands.
On key previously discussed points – such as Israeli withdrawal, prisoner exchanges and Gaza’s reconstruction – the plan also introduces substantial changes.
Firstly, the plan does not offer a definitive full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.
Netanyahu says Israeli forces will not be leaving Gaza amid domestic backlash
Read More »
The suggested withdrawal is slow, phased and conditioned on future talks between Israel and a temporary “International Stabilisation Force” that is yet to be established.
Even then, Israel would not fully withdraw from the Palestinian enclave and would remain in a zone referred to as a “security perimeter” along the Gaza-Israel boundary.
A full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza has long been upheld as a key demand by Hamas before it agrees to release all captives and end the war.
On captives, the plan proposes Hamas should release all remaining Israelis in Gaza – alive and dead – within 72 hours of the agreement beginning.
In exchange, Israel would release 250 Palestinian prisoners – a significantly lower number than what Hamas would have demanded or what was previously offered by Israel and mediators.
It also stipulates that for every deceased captive Hamas releases, Israel would release 15 deceased Palestinians from Gaza. Some 1,700 Palestinians kidnapped from Gaza during Israel’s ongoing invasion, including children and women, would also be released.
On reconstruction, the plan says the enclave would be “redeveloped for the benefit of the people of Gaza” but does not offer details.
It refers to a “Trump economic development plan to rebuild and energise Gaza” which will be created at an unspecified time in the future. It would be created by a panel of experts who “have helped birth some of the thriving modern miracle cities in the Middle East”.
Entry of aid is almost the only condition that follows the previously agreed framework, with goods entering immediately and in quantities consistent with the 19 January 2025 agreement, distributed by the United Nations and its agencies, among others.
New conditions
What stands out most about the latest proposal is the new conditions it introduces – terms that Israel says it has accepted.
At the forefront of the plan is a demand for the complete disarmament of Hamas and other armed factions.
It stipulates that “all military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapons production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt”.
It also outlines a “process of demilitarisation” to be overseen by unspecified “independent monitors”, and declares that Gaza should become a “deradicalised, terror-free zone”, though the plan offers no detail on how this would be implemented.
Why Hamas will not surrender
Read More »
On governance, the plan explicitly excludes Hamas and sidelines the Palestinian Authority – at least during an initial “transitional” phase of unspecified duration.
Instead, administrative control would be handed to an international transitional body, to be chaired by Trump, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and “other members and heads of state”.
A temporary International Stabilisation Force (ISF) would be formed and deployed in Gaza under this transitional authority.
The force is described as the “long-term internal security solution” and would be responsible for vetting, training and supporting Palestinian police forces.
It would also coordinate with Israel and Egypt to “help secure border areas”.
Given Hamas’s previous positions, it is unlikely the movement would accept the proposal without significant amendments.
The Palestinian movement has consistently argued that its arms are legitimate under international law, which recognises the right to armed resistance for people under occupation.
It has previously stated that disarmament could only be considered as part of a broader agreement to establish a Palestinian state.
While Hamas has in the past expressed willingness to relinquish administrative control of Gaza to a Palestinian-led authority, it is unlikely to accept an internationally imposed governance structure – particularly one involving a foreign security force, an idea it has previously rejected.
Anticipating the Hamas response – which has yet to come – the US plan stipulates that should the movement delay or reject the proposal, its 20 points would “proceed in the terror-free areas handed over from the [Israeli military] to the ISF”.
