Benjamin Netanyahu’s categorical rejection of the U.S.-backed Gaza peace plan is a campaign posture, not a final answer. According to a senior U.S. official quoted in the report, the White House is "not bothered" by the rejection, viewing it as rhetoric for Netanyahu’s "uphill" October re-election bid BBC World.
The core fact is this: while rejecting the 15-point document, Netanyahu is simultaneously allowing its implementation to proceed on the ground. The plan’s key enforcement mechanism, the International Stabilization Force (ISF), is still slated to begin building its first base in Rafah at the end of this month. This contradiction reveals a temporary political maneuver that gives Washington little cause for alarm.
For Netanyahu’s Coalition, ‘No’ Is the Only Safe Answer
Netanyahu’s unequivocal cabinet statement on Sunday was tailored for domestic politics. He faces “the most consequential election” of his career on 27 October, having failed to deliver his promised “absolute victory” over Hamas. His coalition’s survival depends on hardline partners like Itamar Ben-Gvir, who labeled the plan “unacceptable.”
“I wish to be precise here: Israel does not accept the 15-point document,” Netanyahu said. “The IDF will not carry out any withdrawal until Hamas is disarmed… all weaponry.”
For Netanyahu, outright rejection is low-risk. It placates his right-wing base skeptical of Hamas’s commitments. It also allows him to project strength against international pressure, a potent image in an election focused on security. As analyst Aaron David Miller told the BBC, Netanyahu is “navigating a very fine line between keeping his constituents happy and not angering or alienating President Trump.”
XOOMAR Interpretation: The public ‘no’ serves a clear electoral purpose. It allows Netanyahu to campaign as the unwavering defender of Israeli security, a necessary stance after the trauma of 7 October 2023 and three years of inconclusive war. Privately, however, he has left the door open to continued talks.
Why the Trump Administration Is Playing the Long Game
The U.S. response, as reported, is strikingly sanguine. A senior official told journalist Barak Ravid: “We understand Bibi’s political needs… We have no problem with it as long as he continues to do what we ask, especially regarding restraining attacks in Gaza.”
The administration’s calm stems from two concurrent, on-the-ground developments that suggest Netanyahu’s rejection is performative:
- An “apparent pause” in Israeli strikes on Gaza, which Hamas demanded as part of the roadmap.
- Continued preparation for the ISF deployment, indicating Israeli military and logistical cooperation continues unabated.
The U.S. seems content to accept Netanyahu’s public defiance as the cost of keeping the process alive through Israel’s volatile election season. As Miller notes, the White House is giving Netanyahu “a pass” for now, likely expecting more flexibility from whatever government emerges in November. This level of patience suggests the 15-point plan remains Trump’s preferred vehicle for a foreign policy win ahead of his own challenging midterm elections.
The High Commissioner's Reassurance Tour: Selling ‘Verification, Not Trust’
The entity tasked with selling this plan, the Board of Peace, moved immediately to contain the damage from Netanyahu’s remarks. High Commissioner Nickolay Mladenov gave an interview to Israel’s Channel 12 hours after the rejection.
He framed the deal strictly around Israeli security, repeating its goal is to ensure “Gaza is never again a threat” and that October 7 “never happens again.” Crucially, he emphasized the mechanics designed to overcome Israeli distrust.
“If there is verified decommissioning of weapons, that they are taken away from the factions and stored… Israel then withdraws from Gaza… Nothing was being built on the basis of trust but on verification.”
His message was a direct rebuttal to Netanyahu’s “fictitious disarmament” charge. By highlighting a sequential, verified process, Mladenov aimed to convince a skeptical Israeli public that the plan’s safeguards are real. This PR effort is vital, as public opposition could harden into a permanent political obstacle. It follows a pattern of international bodies attempting to build domestic Israeli support for externally-led processes, a task with a historically poor success rate, as seen in other complex negotiations like the potential plea deal for Mangione's lawyers.
Hamas’s Calculus: Agreement as a Path to Survival and Pressure
Hamas faces its own dilemmas. The group confirmed it agreed to the framework, conditioning it on “mutual compliance by Israel.” Following Netanyahu’s rejection, unnamed senior officials called on mediators to “push for Israel to stick to the terms agreed.”
Their potential gains are clear:
- An end to Israeli strikes.
- A staged Israeli withdrawal from over 60% of Gaza.
- The start of massive reconstruction.
- A new Palestinian administration to manage the territory.
Their primary risk: ceding its defining “armed struggle” identity through disarmament. The plan offers Hamas a path to retain political influence, or even dominance, within a restructured Gaza administration, but at the cost of its military arsenal. Their continued public commitment to the roadmap post-rejection suggests they see more benefit in keeping the U.S.-led process alive than in walking away. It positions them as the reasonable party, applying indirect pressure on Israel via Washington.
The Stakes Beyond October: A Post-Election Pivot Is Inevitable
The current stalemate is almost certainly temporary, tethered to the 27 October Israeli election. Both U.S. and Israeli analysts in the report point to the election as the real hurdle.
Aaron David Miller stated plainly: “It's hard to believe that you're going to see any serious movement before you have another Israeli government.”
What a Re-elected Netanyahu Might Do
If Netanyahu secures another term, possibly with a different coalition needing centrist support, his rhetoric would likely soften. He could reframe the same 15-point plan as a “test” of Hamas’s intentions under newly “improved” Israeli-suggested verification protocols, allowing him to claim ownership of the process.
What a New Government Might Mean
An opposition victory would dramatically accelerate the plan. A government led by Benny Gantz or another centrist figure would be less ideologically opposed to a phased, verification-based withdrawal and might embrace the U.S. framework as a way to extract Israel from the Gaza morass and refocus on broader regional threats.
Either way, the plan’ foundational elements, the ISF and a new Palestinian administration, are already moving forward. Netanyahu’s “no” has not stopped the bulldozers scheduled for Rafah. His statement is better understood as a campaign press release than a policy directive. The real test comes after the votes are counted, when domestic political space may finally open for the deal’s most contentious element: an Israeli withdrawal. The dynamics of political survival influencing Netanyahu’s stance are not unique, mirroring the pressures seen in other global leaders facing electoral judgment, such as Zambia’s President Hichilema.
What to watch next: The construction start date for the ISF base in Rafah. If work begins as scheduled at month’s end, it will be the clearest signal that Netanyahu’s rejection was verbal only. Then, monitor the composition of Israel’s next government. The 15-point plan is shelved, not shredded. Its future depends entirely on whether the election produces a prime minister who needs to say “yes.”
Impact Analysis
- The political maneuvering highlights how domestic election pressures can delay or obscure real diplomatic progress on critical international conflicts.
- This dynamic risks prolonging instability in Gaza by creating a gap between public posturing and on-the-ground security efforts.
- For the U.S. and international stakeholders, understanding these maneuvers is key to crafting policies that endure beyond election cycles.
Originally published on XOOMAR. For more news and analysis, visit XOOMAR.
