Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected the latest U.S.-backed Gaza peace framework, insisting that Israeli forces will not withdraw until Hamas has been completely disarmed.
On the surface, that demand may sound straightforward.
But it raises a much larger question that cannot simply be ignored:
If Hamas eventually disarms, will Israel genuinely withdraw from Gaza — or will the Israeli government introduce new conditions once the current ones are met?
That question now sits at the heart of the credibility problem surrounding the latest negotiations.
THE PROBLEM IS NO LONGER JUST HAMAS
Israel has consistently argued that Hamas must be stripped of its military capability before any lasting settlement can be considered secure.
But peace cannot be built on obligations imposed on only one side.
If Hamas is expected to surrender its weapons, Israel should also be expected to make clear, binding and verifiable commitments about its own military withdrawal.
Without that, the proposed arrangement risks becoming completely one-sided.
One party gives up its weapons immediately, while the other retains military control and decides later whether the conditions for withdrawal have been sufficiently met.
That is not a balanced peace framework.
It is a structure built almost entirely around Israeli demands.
WHY NETANYAHU’S POSITION MATTERS
Netanyahu’s refusal to accept the current U.S.-backed proposal reinforces longstanding concerns that his government may prefer prolonged military control over a genuine political settlement.
Every negotiation eventually reaches the same difficult point:
What exactly will Israel agree to give up?
Israel demands disarmament.
Israel demands security guarantees.
Israel demands control over the sequence of implementation.
Israel demands verification.
But Palestinians and mediators are equally entitled to ask what guarantees Israel is willing to provide.
Will Israeli troops leave?
When will they leave?
Who will verify the withdrawal?
What happens if Israel refuses after Hamas has already complied?
Those are not minor technical details.
They determine whether this is actually a peace agreement or merely another arrangement in which Palestinians carry most of the risk.
TRUST CANNOT BE ONE-SIDED
Israeli officials repeatedly argue that they cannot simply trust Hamas.
That may be true.
But the reverse question is equally legitimate.
Why should Palestinians or international mediators be expected to trust the Israeli government without enforceable guarantees?
A peace deal cannot operate on the principle that Israel receives permanent security protections while everyone else is expected to rely on Israeli promises.
Trust must be mutual.
Verification must be mutual.
Obligations must be mutual.
Anything less is not sustainable.
THE FEAR OF MOVING GOALPOSTS
The greatest concern surrounding Netanyahu’s latest position is that Hamas disarmament may not actually be the final condition.
What happens if Hamas complies and Israel then insists on continued control of border areas?
What happens if new security zones are demanded?
What happens if Israel decides that Palestinian political arrangements remain unacceptable?
What happens if another requirement is introduced before withdrawal can begin?
That is why a clear timetable matters.
Without one, “withdrawal after disarmament” can become an open-ended promise with no guaranteed ending.
A SERIOUS PEACE PLAN NEEDS ENFORCEMENT
If the United States genuinely wants to end the Gaza war, Washington cannot simply present proposals and hope that every party voluntarily honours them.
The agreement must contain enforceable obligations.
Hamas disarmament should be verified internationally.
Israeli withdrawal should also be verified internationally.
Neither side should be allowed to unilaterally decide whether the other has met its responsibilities.
That is the only way to prevent the entire process from collapsing into another round of accusations and military escalation.
NETANYAHU’S RECORD WILL BE SCRUTINISED
Netanyahu’s critics will inevitably point to his long history of opposing or resisting political arrangements that could lead to expanded Palestinian sovereignty.
His supporters will argue that his position is driven by Israel’s security concerns.
But whatever the motivation, the practical result remains the same:
The latest U.S.-backed Gaza framework is facing another major obstacle because the Israeli government will not commit to withdrawal under the current terms.
That deserves scrutiny.
Israel’s security concerns do not automatically override every other political, humanitarian and legal consideration.
Palestinians also have a right to know whether military occupation will actually end.
CONCLUSION
If Hamas is required to completely disarm, then Israel should be required to provide a clear and enforceable timetable for withdrawing its forces.
Anything less creates an obvious imbalance.
The world should not accept a peace process where one side is required to surrender its leverage while the other keeps complete freedom to decide what happens next.
Netanyahu says Hamas must disarm before Israel leaves Gaza.
The question now is whether Israel is genuinely preparing to leave at all.
And until that question is answered with more than promises, scepticism toward the Israeli government’s commitment to a lasting peace settlement is entirely justified.