Delegations from Israel and Hamas are arriving in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, to begin indirect negotiations aimed at ending the two-year conflict in Gaza. The talks represent the most promising opportunity for peace since hostilities erupted.
While both parties have shown interest in Donald Trump’s 20-point peace framework—with Israel fully endorsing it and Hamas offering partial acceptance—the brief, several-page proposal leaves numerous critical issues unresolved.
Major Challenges Confronting Negotiators
Timing and Terms of Hostage Freedom
The Trump framework calls for the release of all remaining captives within 72 hours of reaching an agreement. Intelligence suggests 48 Israeli hostages remain in Gaza, with approximately 20 believed to be alive.
Trump indicated over the weekend that hostages could be freed “very soon,” while Netanyahu suggested their release could occur before October 13th, the conclusion of the Jewish holiday Sukkot.
Hamas has accepted the proposed hostage “exchange formula,” contingent on certain unspecified “field conditions” being satisfied.
However, the captives represent Hamas’s primary leverage in negotiations, raising questions about whether the group would release them before securing other concessions.
Trust between the parties remains deeply fractured. Just last month, Israel launched an airstrike in Doha targeting Hamas’s negotiating team, drawing condemnation from Hamas, Trump, and Qatar, a crucial mediating nation.
The same negotiating team—led by Khalil al-Hayya, whose son died in that strike—will now conduct talks in close proximity to Israeli representatives in Egypt.
Weapons Surrender Requirements
Throughout the conflict, Israel has maintained that destroying Hamas remains its primary objective. Netanyahu has consistently declared he will continue military operations until the group is eliminated.
Trump’s proposal includes a provision requiring Hamas to surrender its weapons. The group has historically rejected disarmament, stating it would only consider laying down arms after the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Hamas’s recent response conspicuously omitted any reference to disarmament, suggesting its stance remains unchanged.
Netanyahu declared over the weekend: “Hamas will be disarmed and Gaza will be demilitarised – either the easy way or the hard way.”
Questions Over Gaza’s Political Future
The peace framework excludes Hamas from any governance role in Gaza, proposing instead that a temporary body of Palestinian technical experts administer the territory—overseen by a “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump and including former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Long-term control would eventually transfer to the Palestinian Authority.
Despite Netanyahu’s endorsement of Trump’s complete plan, he appeared to distance himself from Palestinian Authority involvement during a joint appearance with the president last week, insisting the PA would have no governing function in Gaza.
This aspect of the proposal poses significant challenges for ultranationalist members of Netanyahu’s coalition, many of whom advocate for maintaining Israeli control of Gaza and reestablishing Jewish settlements in the territory.
Hamas’s response suggested it anticipates participating in Gaza’s future as part of “a unified Palestinian movement.” While ambiguously worded, this position will likely prove unacceptable to both Trump and Israeli negotiators.
Military Pullout Ambiguities
The scope and timeline of Israel’s military withdrawal remains a fourth major point of disagreement.
The framework stipulates that Israeli forces will withdraw from Gaza according to “standards, milestones, and timeframes” requiring mutual agreement from all parties.
A White House-released map outlined three proposed phases of Israeli troop withdrawal. The initial phase would leave roughly 55% of Gaza under Israeli control, followed by 40% in the second phase, and 15% in the final phase.
That remaining 15% would constitute a “security perimeter” maintained “until Gaza is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat.”
This vague language provides no definitive timeline for complete Israeli withdrawal—a detail Hamas will likely demand clarification on.
Furthermore, the White House map contains discrepancies when compared with Israeli military maps showing militarized zones, and inaccurately depicts Gaza’s borders in several locations.
