Trump sets Hamas disarmament as condition for advancing Gaza truce with Netanyahu

This approach summarizes the challenges facing the second phase of the US plan: the end of Hamas’s military control, a broader withdrawal of Israeli troops, the creation of a technocratic Palestinian civilian administration, and the deployment of an international stabilization force. All this in a volatile regional context, with Iran, Syria and Turkey as involved actors, and with Netanyahu also under intense domestic political and legal pressure at home.

The scenography of the meeting has been calculated. Trump appeared at the entrance to his Palm Beach club at 1:25 p.m. A minute later, the Israeli prime minister’s car arrived. “Hello, Bibi,” he said, shaking her hand. In front of reporters, Trump presented him as a “wartime prime minister,” a “hero” and declared that Israel “would not exist” without him. The image sought to strengthen the personal alliance between the two leaders at a key moment.

But behind this gesture of complicity, tensions were building up. The first phase of the truce, which began in October, resulted in the release of all but one hostage, dead or alive, and a significant reduction in fighting. However, moving to the next stage is fraught with substantial disagreement. Israel does not want to move forward as long as unresolved issues remain, such as the return of the remains of the last Israeli hostage in Gaza, Ran Gvili, whose parents met Netanyahu and Trump during their stay in Florida.

Accelerate the transition

Trump has insisted he wants to speed up the transition. Asked about the timetable, he reiterated that Hamas’ disarmament is non-negotiable and avoided detailing specific guarantees regarding the remaining hostages before moving forward. He also claimed the role of his administration in the releases that had already taken place and again attacked Joe Biden, assuring that none had been carried out under his mandate.

The disarmament of Hamas, however, is only one of the stumbling blocks of this plan. The second phase provides a demilitarized Gaza under international supervision, administered by a “technocratic and apolitical” Palestinian committee, and the launch of a supervisory body, the so-called Peace Council, charged with coordinating reconstruction under a UN mandate renewable every two years. The road map also includes the normalization of relations between Israel and several Arab countries and a path to Palestinian independence.

In practice, each of these points generates resistance. Israel is wary of a deep withdrawal without security guarantees. Several Arab and European countries fear that the proposed international force will end up acting as a new secret occupation. Hamas has hinted that it may “freeze” or stockpile its arsenal, but refuses to give up the right to armed resistance as long as there is Israeli occupation. In Washington, a system of economic incentives in exchange for weapons has been proposed, an idea that arouses skepticism among mediators.

The Mar-a-Lago meeting also allowed Trump to toughen his rhetoric on Iran. He claimed to have received information that Tehran attempts to rebuild its ballistic missile program and made clear he would support an attack if that effort continued. “If they continue with the missiles, yes. With nuclear, fast,” he said, while ruling out an explicit goal of regime change and emphasizing that the Iranian government already faces serious economic and social problems.

For Netanyahu, Iran remains the central strategic axis, even as Gaza attracts international attention. In Israel, there is concern about a possible recovery of Iranian military capabilities following last summer’s U.S. attacks, which Trump once again called “complete and utter.” This coincidence of diagnoses reinforces the harmony between the two leaders, even if it does not dispel doubts about the next steps.

Trump also linked his warnings to the recent precedent of the summer bombings. He recalled that the United States directly attacked Iranian nuclear program facilities, as part of an operation ordered by his administration and presented then as a preventive strike. The president reiterated that those targets had been destroyed and made clear that Washington was prepared to act again if Iran resumed developing its nuclear capabilities or accelerated its missile program.

Trump also surprised with a conciliatory tone towards Turkey. Asked about the possibility of a deployment of Turkish forces in Gaza as part of the future security architecture, he replied: “If it is good, I agree.” He also openly congratulated the president Recep Tayyip Erdogana gesture observed with caution both in Jerusalem and among several Arab partners.

Sorry for Netanyahu

The most awkward moment of the appearance came when Trump claimed to have spoken with the The President of Israel, Isaac Herzog, about a possible pardon from Netanyahu in the context of the legal proceedings he is facing in his country, and assured that Herzog had told him that “it is on the way”. A few hours later, the Israeli president’s office issued a statement denying this version.

According to the Israeli presidency, there have been no direct conversations between Herzog and Trump since the pardon request was officially presented. He acknowledged an earlier conversation between Herzog and a Trump representative, during which the status of the proceedings was explained and it was emphasized that any decision would be made in accordance with established legal channels. This clarification revealed uncomfortable frictions and made it necessary to mark institutional distances.

Beyond this episode, Trump once again emphasized his personal confidence in Netanyahu. “Our relationship couldn’t be better,” he said. He announced that they would also talk about Syria and expressed his hope that Israel would “get along” with the new regional scenario. In a scattered appearance, he also claimed to have spoken “very recently” with Nicolas Maduro and to have taken responsibility for attacks on ships linked to drug trafficking in Venezuela, without providing details.

There were even moments of confusion, like when he said he knew nothing about an alleged attack on Vladimir Putin’s residencedenounced by the Kremlin, and later claiming that the Russian president himself had spoken to him about it that very morning. “Maybe the attack did not take place,” he added, casting doubt on the veracity of this episode, which Ukraine described as false.