Trump pushes Gaza ceasefire deal ahead of Netanyahu visit, tells Hamas to take ‘final proposal’

How is the proposed 60‑day Gaza ceasefire being framed in the current diplomatic context?

President Donald Trump announced on July 1 via Truth Social that Israel has agreed to the “necessary conditions to finalize the 60 Day CEASEFIRE” in Gaza, urging Hamas to accept what he described as a “final proposal” delivered by Qatar and Egypt. He warned that refusing the deal would worsen the conflict, stating bluntly, “IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE.”

Trump emphasized that his envoy, Steve Witkoff, and Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer held a “long and productive meeting” in Washington, clearing the path for the ceasefire proposal. The plan seeks to pause the war—now stretching into its ninth month—to facilitate hostage releases and lay the groundwork for a longer-term resolution.

The Israeli government has yet to publicly confirm the ceasefire agreement, and Hamas has not issued a formal response.

What regional historical dynamics shape Qatar and Egypt’s roles as mediators in the Gaza ceasefire?

Qatar and Egypt have long functioned as key intermediaries in Israel–Hamas negotiations. Qatar previously hosted Hamas leaders and facilitated exchanges, while Egypt manages Gaza’s Rafah crossing and has repeatedly brokered truces. Their involvement signals to Hamas that the ceasefire initiative has broad regional legitimacy, not just U.S.–Israeli backing.

Egypt has welcomed the proposal, emphasizing the urgency of humanitarian aid delivery and reopening the Rafah crossing. Qatar’s Prime Minister described the development as a promising “start” toward sustained peace, crediting U.S. and regional diplomats for pushing negotiations forward. Saudi Arabia also expressed support for the initiative and linked it to longer-term goals of Palestinian sovereignty.

How are global governments, regional actors, and institutions responding to Trump’s Gaza ceasefire plan?

Global sentiment reflects cautious support. The United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres welcomed the move, stating that the immediate priority must be “easing the tremendous suffering caused by this conflict.” The UK’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer also backed the deal, associating it with potential hostage releases.

However, observers have noted gaps in implementation strategy. The Arab League, which in March adopted a separate Gaza reconstruction roadmap, continues to advocate for Palestinian self-governance under a technocratic framework. This plan may eventually need to align with U.S. proposals to ensure continuity and acceptance across political lines.

Some countries, including Turkey and China, previously criticized Trump’s Gaza policy when it implied a U.S. administrative role over the territory. Current responses have been more focused on humanitarian relief and conflict cessation, though concerns remain over how power will be transferred or shared post-ceasefire.

What are the geopolitical stakes ahead of Netanyahu’s Washington visit on July 7?

Trump’s announcement comes just days before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to visit the White House. Speaking to reporters on July 1, Trump said he plans to be “very firm” during their meeting. He hopes the deal will be finalized “sometime next week” and expects it to serve as a key discussion point.

Analysts suggest that Trump is positioning this as a diplomatic milestone ahead of Netanyahu’s visit—potentially claiming credit for a breakthrough in one of the region’s deadliest conflicts. Trump has already framed previous peace efforts, including a recent ceasefire between Israel and Iran, as evidence of his ability to broker high-stakes deals.

What are the operational provisions and humanitarian implications of the ceasefire proposal?

While Trump did not publicly disclose the full terms, the proposed ceasefire reportedly includes a 60-day pause in fighting during which parties will negotiate a permanent resolution and organize hostage exchanges. Qatar and Egypt are expected to manage the delivery of humanitarian aid, prisoner releases, and possibly border reopenings.

These elements are aligned with the earlier UN Resolution 2728 passed in March 2024, which called for a full ceasefire and the safe release of captives. However, the lack of public clarity on specific enforcement mechanisms—such as ceasefire monitoring or third-party observers—has raised questions among aid groups and diplomats.

Despite the uncertainty, humanitarian agencies operating in Gaza welcomed the pause as a crucial opportunity to scale medical and food assistance amid collapsing infrastructure.

What are the political and media sentiments shaping public perception of the ceasefire?

In the U.S., Trump’s messaging positions the ceasefire as a legacy-defining diplomatic achievement. Conservative media outlets have promoted the announcement as a sign of renewed U.S. influence in the Middle East, while progressive circles have expressed skepticism, warning against premature declarations absent formal commitments from all sides.

On the ground, there is visible tension between military operations and ceasefire diplomacy. Just hours before Trump’s announcement, Israeli forces ordered additional evacuations in Gaza City, suggesting they remain operationally active. This underscores the fragility of the proposal and the risk of renewed escalation if talks stall.

Among Palestinians, sentiment remains mixed—some express cautious optimism, while others doubt whether a U.S.-brokered deal can deliver justice or autonomy. Hamas’ silence so far reflects either internal deliberation or strategic hesitation.

How does this ceasefire compare to past ceasefire agreements in the region?

The current 60-day plan builds on a shorter truce earlier this year, which saw a temporary halt in violence and limited hostage releases. That deal, also facilitated by Qatar and Egypt, was not fully implemented due to disputes over sequencing and verification.

Trump has also drawn parallels to his role in ending the June Israel–Iran conflict, which followed a U.S.-led strike on suspected nuclear facilities. That fragile truce was seen as a limited success, though it lacked follow-through mechanisms.

Historical precedent suggests that ceasefire duration and credible enforcement mechanisms are key to sustaining momentum. Any breakdown over minor violations, prisoner delays, or aid blockages could reignite hostilities.

What are the major risks and unresolved questions that could undermine the ceasefire?

Critical uncertainties remain. Israeli officials insist that any deal must include Hamas’ disarmament—a condition likely to be rejected by the group. Similarly, Hamas may demand a full and permanent ceasefire, which Israel could view as unacceptable unless security guarantees are in place.

There is also the risk of internal fragmentation. If Hamas’ leadership in Gaza differs from its political bureau abroad, implementation could be inconsistent. Furthermore, the Palestinian Authority’s role—either as a transition administrator or co-governor of post-conflict Gaza—remains undefined.

Finally, any disruption in coordination among mediators—Qatar, Egypt, the U.S.—or a lack of international monitoring could unravel the fragile process before it begins.

What are the biggest diplomatic risks that could unravel the proposed Gaza ceasefire deal in 2025?

The proposed 60-day ceasefire in Gaza represents a pivotal moment in Middle East diplomacy. With regional actors aligned and international sentiment cautiously supportive, the proposal may offer a temporary lifeline to civilians and captives alike. Yet the absence of formal sign-offs from Israel and Hamas, and the continued military activity on the ground, signal how precarious the road ahead remains.

As Netanyahu prepares for his White House visit, all eyes will be on whether Trump’s final proposal can transition from a statement on Truth Social into a meaningful step toward lasting peace.