The American-Israeli Proposal and the Shift Towards a Unilateral Path in the Gaza Strip

The Israeli-American approach to the war in the Gaza Strip is undergoing a qualitative shift, with U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff announcing the formulation of a comprehensive deal for a ceasefire that goes beyond the partial solutions that have prevailed in recent months. This shift follows a series of indirect negotiations between Israel and Hamas sponsored by regional and international parties, and it reveals a growing tendency toward imposing unilateral field and security arrangements. By outlining the shape of the “day after” in the Gaza Strip independently of Palestinian parties, this trajectory reflects a deepening Israeli role in shaping the post-war reality.

Context of the Comprehensive Deal Proposal

During his trip to Israel in early August, Witkoff announced that he was working with Israel on a comprehensive deal for a ceasefire in Gaza covering all major unresolved issues: the release of all detainees, the complete disarmament of Hamas, reconstruction, and the imposition of international control over the Strip under U.S. leadership. He made the announcement during his meeting with Israeli officials and the families of detainees, noting that U.S. President Donald Trump rejects “peacemeal deals.”

This proposal for a comprehensive deal comes after Israel announced July 24 that its negotiating delegation was withdrawing from the talks, following Hamas’s response to an earlier proposal that was made as part of the June negotiations. (That proposal included a temporary ceasefire for 60 days, a partial detainee exchange, and the opening of humanitarian crossings.) It also coincided with the United States announcing its withdrawal as a party to the indirect mediation due to Hamas not showing sufficient seriousness in stopping the fighting and Trump’s announcement of exploring “alternative options” to free the hostages and end the war.

On the ground, this proposal was followed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s announcement that Israel, with Trump’s approval, will proceed with the occupation of the Gaza Strip. This plan, approved by Israel’s Security Cabinet on August 8, involves three phases: evacuating the city of Gaza by pushing about 900,000 residents from the central and northern Gaza Strip toward the south; imposing control over the city; and, finally, gaining control over the refugee camps in the central area of the Gaza Strip.

The military operations are expected to cover areas where Israeli detainees are likely being held. The plan also outlines five principles to end the war: disarming Hamas; returning all living and deceased detainees; turning Gaza into a demilitarized zone; establishing Israeli security control over the Strip; and creating a civilian administration independent of both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

In fact, the Witkoff proposal and the Israeli field measures reveal a unilateral path pursued by both Israel and the United States that first bypasses the multilateral negotiation framework; neutralizes Hamas as both a negotiating party and actor in future security and field arrangements in the Gaza Strip; and transforms the war file in Gaza—and the day after it—from a local, regional, and international matter into a file that follows the Israeli government and its policies.

The Comprehensive Deal: What Does It Mean for Hamas?

Hamas faces a major dilemma as a negotiating party: its demands and conditions do not seem to align with the actual realities on the ground—particularly its demand for a full withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Gaza Strip despite Israel’s vast preparation for and investment in remaining there for a long period.

In addition, Hamas has lost the negotiating leverage it held during the early months of the war and is unable today to publicly offer significant concessions regarding the geography and scope of control in the Gaza Strip. This is primarily due to the impact this would have on its image among the local population, which means that the constraints facing Hamas make it less of an active player and more of an obstructing party as portrayed in Israeli-American perceptions.

Presented as a final solution to the war, the proposal suggests that the war can end if only Hamas agrees to its terms. However, Hamas does not actually hold the authority to agree to explicit conditions involving the occupation of the Gaza Strip. Moreover, given the unlikelihood of its acceptance to disarm, it is expected that Hamas will summarily reject the proposal.

This could set up Hamas to be held universally accountable for the continuation of the war without any foreseeable end or tangible results. Indeed, the Gaza Strip has already witnessed demonstrations and protests against Hamas, with increasing calls from Palestinians—especially people from Gaza—for Hamas to show greater flexibility in negotiations. In addition, Israel aims to direct some of the international and regional pressure calling for an end to the war to blame Hamas as the obstructing party to achieving that goal.

Hamas’s exclusion from the negotiation framework comes after several indications of an Israeli effort to sideline it from the post-war arrangements. Following the end of the first phase of the ceasefire agreement announced January 19, the war resumed March 17 without waiting for the results of the second and third phases, which were supposed to outline the shape of the Gaza Strip after the war.

Within that two-month period, Israel worked to exclude Hamas from arrangements related to securing aid while it also worked to empower Hamas’s rival forces to maintain and enforce security. For instance, Israel supported Yasser Abu Al-Shabab’s anti-Hamas militia, which now controls parts of eastern Rafah and is working to expand this model to other areas inside the Strip. Israel also assigned the task of distributing and protecting aid to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and its Security Cabinet approved a mechanism to gradually and partially resume the entry of commercial goods—including food and medical supplies—to a limited number of local merchants in the Gaza Strip that would be inspected and screened by the Israeli Defense Ministry’s Crossing Authority and subjected to continuous security monitoring.

The Comprehensive Deal: What Does It Mean for the Gaza Strip?

Israel’s move, supported by the United States, toward a unilateral path is not, practically speaking, a strategic shift in Israeli policies or actions on the ground. Rather, it enforces the field and administrative arrangements Israel has sought to implement since the outbreak of the war to keep Gaza under conditional Israeli security and humanitarian administration.

Under this arrangement, the results of the war are imposed as a permanent equation, without addressing the core political issues or major files such as lifting the blockade, reconstruction, or the future of governance in the Strip. This aligns with the content of Israel’s “Day After Document” approved in February last year by the Security Cabinet, which included provisions to remove Hamas’s rule and impose security control over the Gaza Strip.

In fact, Israel has not only worked to achieve this goal on the ground but has also long sought to neutralize Israeli leaders who oppose or fear the idea of occupation by removing them from their positions. This includes the dismissal of Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, the resignation of army Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi, the resignation of Security Agency Director Ronen Bar and, prior to that, the resignation of both Benny Gantz, leader of the “State Camp” party, and Gadi Eisenkot from the War Cabinet. These moves significantly strengthened the odds of approval of Netanyahu’s plan for the occupation of Gaza by the Security Cabinet when it was put to a vote on August 8.

On the other hand, the unilateral path and the massive military operation planned to be launched across the entire Gaza Strip complement the previous military operations and intersect with them in terms of objectives—particularly the military operation “Gideon’s Chariots” launched by the Israeli army and ongoing since May 18. One of its stated goals is to prepare the field in Gaza for a long-term Israeli occupation. Furthermore, the plan to evacuate northern and central Gaza falls within the same context as the wide-scale military operation the Israeli army launched on October 6, 2024, to evacuate the far north, specifically the areas of Jabalia and Beit Hanoun.

Perhaps the most alarming development has been Israel’s recent attempt to direct around 900,000 residents of the Gaza Strip toward the south. In practical terms, this means that the northern and central parts of the Strip have been emptied of their residents, and that the south now houses nearly the entire population of Gaza. This indicates that Israel is proceeding with both field and political preparations for the permanent displacement of Gaza’s residents.

Finally, the proposal for a comprehensive deal and its conditions appears to be an attempt to reshape the situation in the Gaza Strip in line with the dynamics of the war and Israel’s objectives. This is being done by undermining the foundations of negotiation and imposing a post-war reality—one that has already begun to take shape on the ground through security and administrative arrangements under Israeli control.