By: Fern Sidman

In a decisive yet measured response late Saturday evening, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected proposed amendments by Hamas to the latest Qatari-mediated ceasefire framework, branding them “unacceptable,” even as he authorized a negotiating team to depart for Doha to begin indirect talks. The move underscores the delicate balancing act facing Israel’s leadership—pressed between maintaining strategic leverage in a protracted 21-month war and navigating mounting international pressure, particularly from the United States.

As The Financial Times reported, Netanyahu’s security cabinet convened in Jerusalem to assess Hamas’s response to a proposal jointly authored by Qatar, Egypt, and the United States. That proposal, according to drafts seen by the FT and confirmed by sources close to the negotiations, outlines a 60-day ceasefire, the release of 28 Israeli hostages, and the initiation of negotiations toward a permanent cessation of hostilities in Gaza.

“The changes that Hamas is seeking to make in the Qatari proposal were conveyed to us last night and are unacceptable to Israel,” Netanyahu’s office said in a statement released just hours after the cabinet met. Nonetheless, the statement emphasized that Israel remains committed to engaging in indirect negotiations, with an official delegation set to arrive in Doha on Sunday to pursue “proximity talks for the return of our hostages.”

As The Financial Times report observed, the path to a sustainable ceasefire remains fraught with ambiguity. While Hamas publicly described its response to the proposal as “positive” and affirmed its “full preparedness” to enter a new negotiation phase, Israeli officials are alarmed by what they view as last-minute revisions that could erode the core security provisions of the deal.

Among the contested points, according to drafts reviewed by FT, are the scope of Israel’s military withdrawal from the Gaza Strip during the two-month truce, the number and identity of Palestinian prisoners to be exchanged, the mechanism for distributing humanitarian aid, and the strength of U.S. guarantees that would ensure the truce leads toward a broader end to the war.

The Financial Times report noted that both sides remain fundamentally divided not only on tactical details but on the strategic trajectory of the conflict itself. Hamas continues to demand “serious negotiations” to end the war, while Netanyahu remains publicly committed to achieving “total victory”—a policy anchored in the full dismantling of Hamas’s military and governing infrastructure.

Complicating Netanyahu’s calculus is a renewed diplomatic push by President Donald Trump, who is expected to meet with the Israeli leader in Washington on Monday. As FT reported, Trump has voiced strong support for the ceasefire framework, even going so far as to issue public warnings to both parties.

Posting late Friday night on Truth Social, Trump said he was “very optimistic” that a deal could be finalized “next week,” though he admitted the process was volatile: “It changes from day to day.” In a direct message to Hamas, he warned: “I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this Deal, because it will not get better — IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE.”

The Financial Times report also noted that Trump has pledged to be “very firm” with Netanyahu during their White House meeting, signaling growing frustration in Washington with the Israeli premier’s reluctance to endorse an endgame beyond battlefield attrition.

According to the report at FT, the current draft envisions a phased release of 10 living Israeli hostages and the remains of 18 others, with mediated guarantees from the U.S. to prevent a collapse of the ceasefire talks. The framework is designed to unlock further negotiations on the first day of the truce, with built-in mechanisms to extend the temporary halt should progress be made toward a comprehensive end to hostilities.

Despite authorizing the delegation’s departure for Doha, Netanyahu faces intensifying dissent from within his own government. Coalition partners have begun to openly oppose any agreement that falls short of complete military control of Gaza.

Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s national security minister, took to social media on Saturday night to denounce what he called “the path of surrender.” He called instead for the full reconquest of Gaza, a halt to humanitarian aid, and the forced emigration of Gaza’s civilian population—a position that is popular with segments of the nationalist right.

“I call on the prime minister to abandon the path of surrender and return to the path of victory,” Ben-Gvir wrote, in what The Financial Times characterized as a direct challenge to Netanyahu’s authority within the ruling coalition.

Such rhetoric, while politically potent, may severely constrain Netanyahu’s flexibility in negotiations. As the FT report noted, any perceived concession—especially one that leads to Hamas retaining any measure of control in Gaza—could trigger a coalition crisis and prompt calls for early elections.

According to the report in The Financial Times, the latest draft proposes that during the 60-day ceasefire, Israel would begin a gradual withdrawal from certain parts of Gaza, and Hamas would initiate the hostage release in five carefully monitored phases. Mediators from Qatar, Egypt, and the U.S. would play a supervisory role, offering diplomatic cover to both sides.

Still, mutual distrust looms large. The previous short-lived ceasefire collapsed earlier this year amid mutual recriminations. Israel accused Hamas of stalling and regrouping militarily, while Hamas insisted Israel reneged on promises to begin serious negotiations. That failure prompted Israel to launch a renewed offensive in March.

The Financial Times report also highlighted that the 50 remaining hostages, taken during Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack, remain at the center of Israeli public concern. At least 20 of those captives are believed to be alive, a fact that amplifies domestic pressure on Netanyahu to secure their release—by diplomacy or force.

As Israel dispatches its delegation to Doha, the path toward peace remains tenuous, fragmented, and burdened by decades of mutual enmity. The Financial Times report noted that while the architecture of a temporary truce may be in place, the political will to transform that pause into a permanent settlement is in short supply.

Netanyahu’s government, squeezed between the strategic imperatives of security and the political demands of his coalition, enters the talks with caution and deep skepticism. Meanwhile, Hamas seeks to extract guarantees for survival and political legitimacy—goals wholly incompatible with Israel’s doctrine of “total victory.”