Israeli Outlets Split on Trump Deal While All Flag Israeli Scepticism

Perspective Analysis

Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that the Board of Peace had reached a historic agreement for the complete phased disarmament of Hamas and all other armed groups in Gaza. The deal, he said, would lead to a new Palestinian government working with the board, an International Stabilization Force alongside a new Palestinian police force, and eventual IDF withdrawal from the strip, all while guaranteeing Israel security against future attacks from the territory.

Israeli officials responded by restating their core demand that any withdrawal must follow full Hamas disarmament and the removal of weapons from Gaza. A diplomatic source told one outlet that the 15-point document under discussion failed to meet this standard and that Israel had conveyed its reservations directly to envoy Tony Blair. Another Israeli official stated there would be no exceptions for certain weapons or people and insisted on one authority, one law, one weapon in the territory. Hamas sources countered that disarmament would begin only after Israel first fulfilled commitments under the earlier Sharm el-Sheikh agreement, including an end to attacks, withdrawal to the positions held after the October ceasefire, and increased aid flows into Gaza. A senior Hamas official involved in the talks described the proposal as a difficult framework dependent on those prior steps and avoided using the word disarmament when discussing the handover of heavy weapons to a new Palestinian administration body.

The announcement came after months of negotiations involving mediators from Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey. Board of Peace officials described the process as conditions-based with verification mechanisms built in from the start because of mutual distrust. They said Hamas and Palestinian factions had for the first time accepted the entire outline, including clauses on eliminating tunnels and heavy weapons. Full implementation was projected to take 200 to 300 days, with no stage beginning until the previous one was completed. Israeli strikes continued in Gaza on the same day, killing at least six Palestinians according to local health authorities, while the Israeli military said it had targeted Hamas operatives.

Former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak said the framework’s language was ambiguous but its direction clear: Israel and its demands were being ignored. He stated the text did not require complete disarmament, removal of weapons, or exile of Hamas leadership and instead spoke of ending assassinations and returning Israeli control to 53 percent of Gaza rather than 65 percent. Barak added that Trump no longer placed much weight on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and that the Israeli leader had lost negotiating leverage.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir rejected the draft outright and called for continued assassinations of Hamas leaders along with displacement of Palestinians. Hostage families and bereaved families groups condemned the agreement as a betrayal that once again placed Israeli lives at risk for political convenience. On the Hamas side, officials said they were prepared to accept what they called a painful deal only after Israel met its initial obligations, and residents in Gaza expressed scepticism that the announcement would produce immediate change on the ground.

Israeli reporting diverged on how heavily to weight these reservations. One account presented the announcement as a breakthrough with both sides having signed and implementation now inevitable despite lingering doubts. Another Israeli outlet led with Hamas’s explicit precondition that disarmament would follow IDF withdrawal. A third carried Barak’s detailed critique that the entire framework sidelined Israel and left it without a seat at the table. European reports drawing from the same wire service stressed the uncertainty over Israeli support, quoting US officials who described Israel as very sceptical that Hamas would disarm and Israeli officials who said they had rejected the proposal because it did not satisfy demands for complete demilitarization first.

No Palestinian outlets appeared in the coverage pool. That absence leaves questions about enforcement mechanisms and the new governance body’s composition unexamined from the perspective of those who would live under the arrangements. The consistent thread across every available report is Israeli scepticism that Hamas will surrender its weapons without prior withdrawal, a position stated on record by multiple officials and reinforced by the continued military operations in Gaza on the day of the announcement.

The single-source claim that the framework sidelines Netanyahu comes solely from Barak and lacks corroboration in the other accounts. All other core assertions—Trump’s announcement, Hamas’s precondition of withdrawal first, and Israel’s expressed reservations—appear in multiple independent reporting chains and align on the basic sequence of events.