The proposal presented by the U.S. and accepted by Israel for Gaza is not peace but a crisis-management deal — a political “patch” to temporarily stop the bleeding, bring the hostages home, and ease international pressure. It provides for a conditional ceasefire, the release of hostages, the gradual withdrawal of the Israeli army, and the establishment of international administration in the Strip. Israel commits not to annex Gaza but retains control of “security landmarks” — meaning the final say on when and how it leaves. In other words, the balance of power remains unchanged.

If Hamas Says Yes
Acceptance of the proposal by Hamas would amount to an admission of defeat. The group would lose its military control and be forced to hand power over to an international technocratic mechanism. For Israel, this would be a strategic victory without the burden of permanent occupation. For Washington, it would be a diplomatic card showing it still has influence in shaping developments in the Middle East.

The day after in Gaza will not be easy. The power vacuum will be immense. Jihadist networks, Iranian influence, and local factions will attempt to fill it. No one would be surprised — the last such shift in 2006 gave birth to Hamas itself, which now finds itself at death’s door. Even with Arab backing, the international administration would need time, resources, and guarantees to function. Gaza will not suddenly become a neutral ground — it will remain fragile and dangerously unstable.

If Hamas Says No
If Hamas rejects the plan, escalation will follow. Israel, with open U.S. backing, will seek to complete its mission militarily: the neutralization of Hamas. That means new bombardments, thousands more victims, destruction of infrastructure, and mass displacement. Hamas would try to present itself as “the resistance” that did not bow to humiliating terms.

But the cost could be fatal. Militarily, Hamas is already disadvantaged, and prolonging the war will only increase its losses. Internationally, the West will support Israel — but in the Arab world, anger will boil over. And the fire won’t stay in Gaza: it could spread to the West Bank, reaching Hebron, Nablus, Jericho.

The Dangerous Silence on the West Bank
The most worrying element is what the plan does not mention. There is no reference at all to the West Bank. This silence is deliberate, a strategic choice. The U.S. and Israel want to “close” the Gaza front without opening Pandora’s box in the West Bank.

In practice, this means cementing the separation: a Gaza under international supervision and a West Bank under occupation, settlements, and daily tensions. The Palestinian map is split in two, the two-state solution drifts further away, and the prospect of a unified Palestinian state is permanently weakened.

The Palestinian Authority Fading with Abbas
Beyond Hamas, the big loser is the PLO. Born of the Palestinian movement itself and once its internationally recognized voice, it is politically dead. In Gaza, it will play no role, even if Hamas is defeated. In the West Bank, Mahmoud Abbas is more exposed than ever: unable to integrate the region into any peace plan, he is drowning in criticism.

The result is a Palestinian political vacuum. Hamas faces military extinction, the PLO has disappeared from the scene, and Abbas is left without political capital. A people remain without leadership, without representation, without a strategic compass.

Political Turmoil for Netanyahu
The deal does not unfold in a political vacuum. It is already triggering new tremors within Israel itself. Netanyahu’s far-right partners are exerting intense pressure — some even threaten to withdraw or support votes to dissolve the government, using security and settlement issues as leverage.

At the same time, the opposition is making a rare move toward consensus: top centrist leaders say they are willing to back a deal that secures the release of hostages and a halt to hostilities — a step that temporarily strengthens Netanyahu’s hand but simultaneously erodes his coalition’s political capital.

The past weeks show how fragile the political balance in Jerusalem is: party defections, threats of early elections, and opposition maneuvers for “political security” all create a landscape where the government can survive only through temporary, fragile deals. Yet Netanyahu has proven adept at managing such crises and may even see this as an opportunity to reshape his government rather than go to elections, with public discontent still boiling.

Netanyahu has survived far more complex challenges and has no intention of being left with only his legal troubles and a war in its “final stages.” If anyone embodies the maxim “crisis breeds opportunity” in Israeli politics, it is him.

The Rest of the Middle East
The proposal does not exist “in vitro.” The Middle East is a complex mosaic of interests, and all major players have a stake in the next day:

• Qatar: Maintains a channel with Hamas and with the U.S., positioning itself as an indispensable mediator. It seeks to preserve its influence and prevent Gaza’s total collapse. Netanyahu’s recent “apology” for strikes in Doha likely came with a price, perhaps demanded from Washington. Questions remain about where Qatar would stand if Israel escalates against Hezbollah. Doha risks being labeled a sponsor of terrorism, and Israeli strikes on its soil underscore the dangers.
• Egypt: Fears population flows into Sinai and prioritizes border stability. It supports a controlled international solution that safeguards its security.
• UAE: Openly backs the U.S. plan, seeing stability as essential to deepening ties with Israel, while rejecting West Bank annexation.
• Saudi Arabia: Without progress toward a two-state solution, normalization with Israel is off the table. Riyadh wants to keep its Arab leadership role and avoid charges of “abandoning” the Palestinians.
• Turkey: Sharp rhetoric against Israel bolsters its image as a defender of Palestinians. Ankara seeks an active role in future talks to expand regional influence.
• Iran: Losing Hamas would be a strategic blow. Tehran will try to compensate by bolstering Hezbollah and other armed groups to keep the conflict alive elsewhere.
• Jordan: Concerned about border security and refugee pressures. Pushes for a comprehensive solution that includes the West Bank, though its leverage is limited.

The picture is clear: everyone wants to avoid uncontrolled escalation, but each defends its own interests. Gaza will remain at the heart of regional rivalries for a long time.

The U.S.–Israel plan may provide Gaza with a temporary respite, but it does not solve the problem. If Hamas accepts, it signs its own disappearance. If it rejects, the situation could become even worse, with Trump’s phrase — “then Israel must do what it has to do” — leaving little to the imagination, even the most extreme or sinister scenarios favored by Netanyahu’s far-right partners.

Either way, the West Bank remains excluded, the PLO is politically dead, and Abbas loses his last shred of legitimacy. What remains is a headless Palestinian cause — a people without leadership or voice. Meanwhile, the Middle East, rife with conflicting interests, continues to play its own games on the backs of the Palestinians. And as long as the hard questions stay off the table, the future will only grow more explosive.