TEL AVIV — A deadline now governs a war that has defied clocks for nearly two years. With hours left until Sunday at 6 p.m. Washington time, Israel’s military signaled that it was preparing for the first phase of a White House plan and Hamas indicated conditional acceptance of parts of President Donald Trump’s 20-point proposal to end the fighting in Gaza. The core promise is stark and simple on paper. A ceasefire that holds long enough to bring home every Israeli hostage still alive, repatriate remains, and open a conduit for relief, followed by a sequence of withdrawals, exchanges, and supervision that could change how Gaza is governed.
Nothing about this is simple in practice. The public statements that followed the rollout split across familiar lines. Israel welcomed the framework but kept forces in place. Hamas said it would accept elements of the proposal, including the release of all Israeli hostages, while rejecting other parts and seeking further consultations among Palestinian factions. The plan’s technical heart is a ladder. It starts with a verified halt to fire, then a first tranche of hostage releases and prisoner exchanges, then measures to stabilize daily life, and only then a debate over longer term security arrangements and who, if anyone, polices Gaza once the guns go quiet. For the mapped architecture of negotiation, see our coverage of inspection design and monitored routes.
Trump added a timer to that ladder. In messages amplified worldwide, he instructed Israel to stop bombing to facilitate exchanges and set a public ultimatum that expires on Sunday evening. The White House presented this as a final chance for a clean break from a conflict that has pushed civilians past endurance. Reuters reports that Israel and Hamas formally endorsed Trump’s first phase.
The plan’s first phase, as described by US officials and echoed in Israeli statements, centers on verifiable steps that are legible to families who have spent months waiting by their phones. Hostage lists. Routes. Medical checks. Confirmations that reach across borders. In that window, Gaza would see a surge of humanitarian deliveries through corridors that have historically been inconsistent and risky. Our coverage of crossing logistics and guarantee frameworks explores how those routes might function. The goal is to compress the chaos into a schedule that can withstand political pressure. If the handoffs succeed, later phases would move to deeper questions that war has only sharpened. Who secures the crossings. Who pays for repairs. Which actors are barred from carrying weapons. What happens to the tunnel grid that shaped much of the combat — an issue traced in our analysis alongside Washington vs. street-level reality.
Israel, for its part, said the army is preparing for the first phase of implementation while staying ready to act if the clock runs out. After months of urban fighting, the shift is more about posture than geography. Defense officials spoke of a defensive configuration that still keeps units forward. Inside the political system, the plan collided with long-standing currents: security professionals demanding verification, far-right ministers hostile to concessions, and hostage families demanding immediate results. In earlier reporting, we explored how pullback lines might be contested in real time. See that analysis.
The US placed itself at the center of the timetable. The administration collected endorsements from partners and framed the deal as a test of seriousness for all sides. The promise goes beyond quiet. It includes a reconstruction track with external oversight, and an effort to expand economic links that would stabilize Gaza rather than trap it under siege. Supporters see this as the only way to shift incentives. Critics call it over-compressed. For a contrast between voice and site, see our piece on ground-level constraints.
Diplomats in shuttle mode point to persistent pinch points: sequencing of releases versus withdrawals, the level of inspection at crossings, and the presence of monitors trusted by both sides. Egypt and Qatar continue to play guarantor roles, and Washington must police Israel’s adherence to the schedule it did not draft. Politically, the optics are fraught. In Israel, pausing fire at a US president’s direction invites domestic backlash. In Gaza, foreign supervision risks being seen as occupation. For maritime dimension, see our explainer on inspection at sea and our land-side note on coastal crossing inspections.
What makes this weekend different is the convergence of leverage and exhaustion. The war has taught each side what brute force cannot achieve. Hamas can resist, but it can’t survive infrastructure collapse. Israel can demolish, but it can’t secure reconciliation or return all hostages alone. The window opened because both parties want something they can’t militarily force.
The first seventy-two hours would be a stress test. In one favored scenario, the ceasefire triggers at a precise hour. Monitors confirm fire has stopped. Health workers move through protected corridors. Hostages cross predetermined points. Prisoners exit Israeli sites according to exchange formulas long debated. Even if this succeeds, further steps become harder. The disarmament question is central. If Hamas retains arms, Israel says the pause is only tactical. If Israel demands full disarmament before exchange, Hamas says no deal.
Hence the emphasis on verification over trust. Layers of checks, foreign observers, phased payments, metrics on power and environment, crossing scrutiny, incremental fund releases. The hope: measurable progress alters incentives.
There are known risks. Rogue factions might break the truce. Any hostage misstep would crush political will. Israeli forces bound by ceasefire rules might absorb provocations while constrained. Regionally, Lebanon’s border, Syria’s airspace, and Gulf capitals monitor each misstep. Europe and the U.N. demand speed. Trump has staked credibility. Every actor can claim win or blame.
The governance question looms largest. The plan hints at trusteeship and interim oversight. The Palestinian Authority is the default candidate, with technocrats as alternates. Both lack consensus. Israeli critics will attack any residual Hamas role. Palestinian critics will reject anything that seems external control. The negotiators have tried to sidestep those fights by narrowing the first objectives: hostages. peace. breathing room.
Hostage families in Israel, who have marched and pleaded through months, greeted the weekend with both hope and dread. In Gaza, displaced families ask: when will flour arrive? Can generators run? Which roads reopen? Medical services hinge on fuel and access. Humanitarian actors have already suspended activities in parts of Gaza City because diesel and access aren’t assured. Verified snapshots from OCHA’s Gaza reports confirm intensifying crisis.
Deadlines sharpen clarity but also magnify pride. The fixed hour forces choice. It may push consensus. Or collapse under the weight of mistrust. The difference lies in execution and diplomatic wordplay — Israel needs credible security language; Hamas must preserve dignity. Mediators must find sentences both sides can read to their own audiences.
This weekend sits between urgency and uncertainty. Diplomats’ phones will burn searching for concession on sequencing, inspections, and joint statements. The answer will determine whether families wake to life-changing announcements or another week of cruel waiting.
