A possible path away from the Gaza war has emerged, but one of Israel’s most powerful far-right ministers is already demanding that the military campaign continue.
Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has rejected the proposed Gaza disarmament roadmap as “unacceptable”. The framework announced on July 31, 2026, is intended to link the gradual dismantling of Hamas’s military capabilities with a phased Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. ’s response was uncompromising. He argued that Israel should continue targeting Hamas figures, promote Palestinian emigration from Gaza and pursue what he described as complete Israeli victory.
His intervention raises a serious question: is Ben-Gvir demanding legitimate security guarantees—or opposing any process that could bring the war to an end?
What the Gaza roadmap proposes
The proposal is not an immediate surrender of every weapon. It establishes a monitored process involving Hamas, Israel, a Palestinian technocratic administration and an international stabilisation force.
Weapons and military infrastructure would progressively be placed under the authority of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza. Tunnels, weapons-production facilities and heavy arms would be dismantled or secured as verified stages were completed.
Israeli forces would then withdraw in phases, with each movement linked to progress on disarmament and the transfer of security responsibilities to the new Palestinian administration and internationally supported security forces. s accepted the roadmap with significant conditions. It says Israel must halt its attacks, withdraw troops and increase humanitarian access as the process advances.
Hamas also says its weapons would be stored under Palestinian authority rather than handed directly to Israel or another foreign government. It has avoided describing the arrangement as an unconditional or immediate surrender.
Israel’s government has not publicly accepted the final roadmap. Israeli officials continue to insist that no major withdrawal should occur before what they describe as the genuine disarmament of Hamas.
The dispute over which side must act first remains the greatest obstacle to implementation.
What Ben-Gvir said
Ben-Gvir denounced the proposed commitment to stop targeted killings of Hamas members.
“The assassinations in Gaza must continue,” he declared.
He also said the “encouragement of emigration” should proceed, before adding: “Israel must win.” uage matters.
Continuing targeted killings while negotiations are beginning could undermine the ceasefire conditions required for disarmament. His demand for Palestinian emigration is also deeply controversial.
People living under bombardment, repeated displacement and severe deprivation may have little genuine freedom to decide whether they remain in their homeland. Critics therefore argue that promoting emigration under such conditions could amount to forced displacement rather than a truly voluntary choice.
Ben-Gvir presents his position as a security argument. He believes allowing Hamas members or military structures to survive would give the organisation time to rebuild and eventually attack Israel again.
That concern is shared by other Israeli politicians who argue that Hamas cannot be trusted to honour an agreement.
However, the roadmap is designed around verification rather than trust. Each stage would require monitoring, reciprocal action and independent confirmation before the next stage could begin. ty or permanent war?**
Israel has an obligation to protect its population. Any durable settlement must prevent Hamas or another armed organisation from launching attacks against Israeli civilians.
But security cannot be judged only by how many military operations are conducted or how long a war continues.
A policy that rejects negotiated disarmament before it has even been tested risks creating a permanent cycle. Continued attacks produce further anger, desperation and recruitment, while every new threat is then used to justify additional attacks.
Ben-Gvir’s position appears to leave little room for any outcome other than indefinite Israeli military control, mass Palestinian departure or the complete destruction of Hamas through force.
After years of warfare, none of those approaches has produced a stable political solution for Israelis or Palestinians.
The practical test should be whether the roadmap can verifiably remove Hamas’s military capacity, protect Israeli civilians, allow displaced Palestinians to return and begin Gaza’s reconstruction.
Should it achieve those objectives, dismissing the proposal outright would not strengthen Israeli security. It could destroy one of the few available opportunities to replace open-ended warfare with an enforceable political process.
Pressure on Netanyahu
The disagreement also places pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Supporting a phased withdrawal could trigger fierce resistance from far-right coalition figures. Rejecting the roadmap could place Israel at odds with Washington and other governments backing the initiative.
US President Donald Trump has claimed Israel is pleased with the agreement. However, Netanyahu has not publicly endorsed the final roadmap, and Israeli officials continue to express deep scepticism about whether Hamas will complete the disarmament process. rael publicly accepts clear obligations, the proposal remains a diplomatic framework rather than a guaranteed end to the war.
That uncertainty gives hardliners such as Ben-Gvir an opportunity to shape the debate before implementation begins.
Why this matters
The roadmap may fail.
Hamas may delay or resist verified disarmament. Israel may refuse to withdraw. International monitors may struggle to enforce the stages, while Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other armed factions may reject the arrangement. ure is not inevitable.
Political leaders should be judged by whether they seriously test a credible path away from war—not by how quickly they dismiss it.
Ben-Gvir says his position is about victory and security. Critics will see something very different: a demand to continue assassinations, encourage Palestinians to leave their homeland and block a process that could finally end the fighting.
The question is no longer only whether Hamas will surrender its weapons.
It is also whether Israel’s most powerful hardliners are prepared to accept any outcome in which Gaza’s Palestinians remain in Gaza and the war actually ends.
Is Ben-Gvir demanding security—or ensuring the war never ends?