Netanyahu Gaza War Ends if Hamas Disarms, Frees Hostages

War Could End Tomorrow—Netanyahu’s Position on Hamas, Hostages, and Gaza’s Future On August 10–11, 2025, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated his long-standing stance: the war in Gaza could end as early as tomorrow—but only if Hamas lays down its weapons and releases all remaining hostages. This conditional proposition underscores Israel’s primary demand for de-escalation—but only on terms that fully neutralize Hamas’s military capacity and eliminate its presence in Gaza.

Netanyahu’s Five-Point Plan for a Post-War Gaza

Netanyahu recently outlined a five-point framework for concluding the conflict and envisioning Gaza’s future:

1. Hamas disarmed
2. All hostages freed
3. Gaza demilitarized
4. Israel maintains overriding security control
5. A non-Israeli peaceful civilian administration governs Gaza

This plan seeks to ensure that Gaza never again becomes a launchpad for terror. Netanyahu emphasized: “Our goal is not to occupy Gaza. Our goal is to free Gaza—from Hamas terrorists.”According to him, Israel’s war “can end tomorrow” if Hamas complies with these conditions.

A History of Hostage-Ceasefire Negotiations—and Political Pushback

Netanyahu’s current stance echoes earlier remarks he made in October 2024, following the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, where he declared that war “can end tomorrow” if Hamas lays down arms and returns hostages. At the time, around 101 hostages from 23 countries were being held by Hamas.

Despite intermittent ceasefire proposals and multinational mediation efforts—including those backed by the U.S., Egypt, and Qatar—Netanyahu has consistently insisted that hostages alone cannot be the basis for ending the conflict. In May 2024, he rejected Hamas’s demand that war cease as a condition for hostage release, arguing it would leave Hamas intact and pose a future threat.

He has also warned against trusting that Hamas would uphold any deal—citing the need for Israel to maintain the right to resume military operations if necessary.

Recent Developments: Escalation, Ceasefire Talks, and Public Pressure

In March 2025, Netanyahu affirmed his willingness to negotiate a ceasefire-hostage exchange deal, but only if Hamas disarms.Talks including a 60-day truce and phased hostage releases in Doha moved forward, albeit with Hamas consistently rejecting terms that limit its military and governance capabilities.

However, hopes for a breakthrough faded. By August 2025, U.S.-backed ceasefire negotiations in Doha had collapsed, and Israel’s security cabinet signaled they were preparing for expanded military operations and potential annexation of parts of Gaza.

The Humanitarian Cost and International Response

Amid these developments, Gaza faces a worsening humanitarian crisis. As of August 10, 2025, UN officials warned of widespread starvation, with 98 children dying from acute malnutrition since October 2023, and over 61,000 Palestinians killed in the conflict. Only 14% of required aid has been entering the territory—compounding the toll on civilians.

International criticism is mounting. Humanitarian organizations and some foreign governments have voiced alarm over Israel’s deepening offensive in Gaza City. Critics warn the operation risks becoming a protracted conflict—likening it to a “Vietnam-style” quagmire.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu continues to frame the offensive as a protective measure—a necessary effort to dismantle Hamas and restore the potential for peace. He has also called out what he describes as a “global campaign of lies” against Israel and said Gazans themselves are begging to be freed from Hamas rule.

The Strategic Dilemma: Peace Through Force or Negotiation?

At its core, Netanyahu’s repeated assertion—that the war can end tomorrow if Hamas capitulates—highlights a profound strategic dilemma. Military victory and lasting peace, Israel argues, depend not only on stopping immediate violence but on ensuring Hamas loses the capacity to wage war in the future. Conversely, critics argue the humanitarian costs are crippling, and that Israel’s refusal to risk any future threat—even if it delays peace—must be reconsidered.

Summary Table: Netanyahu’s Position vs. Political and Humanitarian Realities