The “Yellow Line” Withdrawal: What Trump Is Proposing

The “Yellow Line” Withdrawal: What Trump Is Proposing

One of the central claims circulating in recent statements attributed to former U.S. President Donald Trump is that he presented a map defining a “yellow line” in Gaza. According to Trump, this line demarcates how far Israeli forces would withdraw in a ceasefire deal. The map reportedly positions6.5 km within Gaza, subdivided into:

2.5 km from central Gaza (southern sector)

3.5 km from northern Gaza

In other words, Israeli troops would pull back from more advanced positions in exchange for Hamas releasing hostages. Trump claims both Hamas and Israel have agreed to abide by this map, and that Israel will formally initiate the withdrawal as part of the peace deal.

This “yellow line” notion has entered public debate as a focal point of the proposed ceasefire agreement: Israeli forces pull

From Offensive to Defensive: The Change in Israeli Strategy

According to reporting from Haaretz and other outlets, Israel’s military has already begun shifting toward a defensive posture. Politically, the government is preparing for implementation of the first phase of Trump’s ceasefire plan. Such a shift is a major tactical pivot: it marks a partial de-escalation of offensive operations in Gaza, while Israel positions its forces to focus on retention of territory near the “yellow line” and broader defensive capabilities rather than active expansion.

Rumors also suggest that Israeli reserve forces will begin to demobilize, and the military will pull back from aggressive maneuvers. These steps may signal an intention to reduce hostilities and create a space for diplomatic progress — or at least to reposition for one

Trump’s Envoys: Witkoff, Kushner, and the Negotiation Team

A key dynamic in this evolving landscape is the dispatch of high-level American envoys. Two names repeatedly mentioned are:

Steve Witkoff — a negotiation specialist close to Trump, tasked with managing the mechanics of ceasefire, prisoner exchange, troop withdrawal, and subsequent peace plans.

Jared Kushner — assigned a more strategic oversight role, especially for the postwar framework and implementation of the peace plan’s deeper political and structural components.

Witkoff is viewed as Trump’s main troubleshooter in real time, working to iron out details with both Israeli and Palestinian interlocutors. Kushner, on the other hand, is seen as the architect of the longer-term vision: reconstruction, governance, institutional stability. The plan hinges on Kushner’s ability to ensure that the agreed terms are coherent, enforceable, and sustainable.

Trump’s strategy appears to hinge on speed. He is reportedly pressing both sides to conclude negotiations before Israel or others can derail them with objections or delay tactics. Some analysts suggest that this urgency is meant to outrun internal resistance, especially from hardline Israeli factions. 

The Risk of Collapse: Trump’s Authority vs Netanyahu’s Resistance

The deal Trump is pushing rests heavily on one thing: whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will comply. Some authors, such as Barak Ravid, caution that the agreement’s foundation is fragile — it’s built on public statements from Trump and depends on Netanyahu’s willingness to yield. Netanyahu, after all, is under severe pressure from his far-right coalition partners. Netanyahu’s own internal coalition includes ministers like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who vehemently oppose any deal preserving Hamas or limiting Israel’s military options. Their departure or rebellion could precipitate a government crisis.

Indeed, recent Reuters reporting notes that Netanyahu now faces a backlash from the far-right over his acquiescence to Trump’s 20-point plan. Reuters If Ben-Gvir or Smotrich pull out of the coalition, Netanyahu risks losing his majority and triggering early elections.

Trump, conversely, appears to be signaling that he expects full compliance regardless of objections. Reports suggest that he has marginalized Netanyahu’s objections and pressed for unilateral imposition of the deal. In a phone conversation with journalist Barak Ravid, Trump reportedly said Netanyahu “cannot face me” and that he (Trump) expects Netanyahu to comply. 

If Netanyahu resists, the consequences could be volatile: a fractured coalition, mass protests from hardliners, or worse — a chaotic unraveling of the deal at the last minute.

What Hamas Accepts — and What It Rejects

On the Hamas side, public comments indicate partial acceptance of Trump’s peace framework. Reports suggest that Hamas has agreed in principle to:

Release all remaining hostages

Hand over administrative control of Gaza to an independent technocratic Palestinian authority

Enter further negotiations on broader political issues

However, Hamas has withheld full endorsement on crucial points like disarmament, its future role in governance, and the precise terms of Israeli withdrawal. 

Amos Harel and other analysts note that neither Israel nor Hamas want to look like the party to break the deal. So each side has been measured in its public responses — praising parts of the plan while avoiding outright commitment to contentious provisions. 

In short: yes, there is movement. But major gaps remain. The devil is in the details — which, as always, can derail even the most promising initiatives.

What Each Party Stands to Gain — or Risk

Israel

Gain: If the deal holds, Israel can claim it met its war aims: securing hostage release, limiting Hamas’s power, and cutting down on further military casualties. Netanyahu could hail the agreement as a success, possibly improving his global standing

Risk: Netanyahu’s political survival is in jeopardy. The ultra-right could collapse his government. Also, if Hamas reneges or continues to operate covertly, Israel may be forced back into war.

Hamas

Gain: Hamas can tout its involvement in negotiations and partial acceptance, which may boost popular legitimacy. If it retains some role in governance or avoids total disarmament, it can preserve influence.

Risk: If it consents to major concessions (like disarmament or ceding control), it could be marginalized. If it resists, it risks being painted as an obstacle and facing renewed bombardment.

United States / Trump

• Gain: A successful deal elevates Trump’s diplomatic legacy, possibly bolstering his claims for future presidency and even a shot at the Nobel Peace Prize (a subject reportedly under internal discussion).

Risk: Failure or collapse undermines U.S. credibility. If the plan falls apart, Trump’s prestige takes a hit, and the region could unravel anew.

Egypt

Gain: Egypt regains its role at the heart of negotiations. As host of talks and curator of ceasefire terms, Egypt elevates its diplomatic stature.
Much more: Egypt is likely to host and supervise Palestinian security training, particularly for Palestinian police operating in Gaza — which gives Cairo leverage and influence over the future security architecture.
Also, reopening the Suez Canal, boosting exports, receiving return of investors in stable environment — all are economic wins in a peaceful scenario.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Gulf States

If a stable Gaza emerges and normalization proceeds, Saudi Arabia may be pressured to formalize ties with Israel, unlock defense cooperation, and explore nuclear technology options under U.S. auspices. Some analysts argue that Saudi-Israeli normalization could lead to a nuclear partnership or broader defense pacts. 

Qatar, already engaged in mediation and aid, stands to preserve or expand its diplomatic influence in Palestinian affairs

.

The Elephant in the Room: Will the Deal Hold?

Even if all sides sign on to the basic framework, multiple forces threaten to derail the plan:

Israeli hardliners may reject compromises, mobilize protests, or propose cabinet exits. Reuters reports that Netanyahu already faces backlash from the far-right over accepting Trump’s plan. Reuters

Hamas internal divisions may lead to splits if its field leaders resist major concessions not negotiated locally.

Delay tactics or procedural objections could be used to stall the process until momentum fades.

Sudden military escalations or retaliatory strikes could shatter the fragile truce before it truly begins.

As political columnist Barak Ravid has warned, the entire agreement is tentatively balanced on statements and resolve. Flinching could unravel weeks or months of diplomatic effort.
Moreover, analysts like Amos Harel suggest that Trump’s plan competes with Netanyahu’s own wartime logic and internal promises. If those clash, Netanyahu may find himself walking a tightrope between external pressure and domestic expectations. Sequence of Negotiations: What Comes Next?

Technical coordination — Envoys will negotiate how withdrawal, hostages, and monitoring will be synchronized.

Ceasefire initiation — At least formally, Israel should stop bombardment and maintain defensive positions. The Guardian reports that negotiators are already in Cairo preparing for this phase. 

Hostage-for-prisoner exchange — Hamas releases Israeli hostages; Israel releases Palestinian detainees.

Partial withdrawal — Israeli forces retract to the “yellow line” as agreed.

Establishment of transitional governance — Management of Gaza to be handed to a technocratic body, possibly under international oversight. The plan envisions a multilateral board including Donald Trump and Tony Blair.

Demilitarization of Hamas and disarmament — This is one of the most contentious and difficult parts.

Long-term institution building — Electoral systems, security forces, reconstruction, economic revival.

At each stage, implementation depends on trust, verification, and political will. Any disruption or refusal could stall the entire process.

Historical Precedents & Strategic Context

This isn’t the first time Gaza has been subject to ceasefire proposals or partial withdrawals. The past two decades have seen repeated patterns:

Agreements that collapse due to lack of trust or external spoilers

Partial withdrawals followed by renewed incursions

Attempts at technocratic or third-party governance met with resistance

Domestic political pressures in Israel and internal divisions in Palestinian leadership

What is new this time is Trump’s heavy-handed involvement, the urgency he imposes, and the coordinated diplomatic pressure on both sides. As Haaretz observes, Trump is attempting to “bend Gaza’s reality to his will.” Critics argue that the plan leans heavily toward Israeli security interests, with limited guarantees for Palestinian rights or participation. Some see the plan as attempting to institutionalize Israeli control through a trusteeship model.

Scenarios: What Happens If It Fails

Back to combat — If the deal collapses, airstrikes and Israeli raids may resume across Gaza.

Governmental collapse in Israel — If far-right ministers quit, the coalition could fall, forcing elections or a new coalition.

Increased regional tensions — Iran, Hezbollah, or other actors might exploit the vacuum to escalate conflict.

Diplomatic blowback — Trump and the U.S. would suffer reputational damage, weakening Washington’s leverage.

Humanitarian disaster deepens — Gaza’s population, already suffering, would endure renewed destruction and deprivation.

Final Thoughts: Will War Truly Be Over?

To answer your question: no, the war is not necessarily over just because Trump says so or because a map is drawn. But something new may be dawning — not peace in the classic sense, but a negotiated pause backed by a powerful external hand.

Trump’s push is audacious: he is attempting to force both Israel and Hamas into a corner where their only option is acceptance. Whether this gamble pays off depends on the balance of pressure, domestic politics inside Israel, Hamas’s internal cohesion, and the capacity of trust mechanisms.

If the deal holds — even partially — Israel may retreat to the yellow line, Hamas may free hostages, and Gaza could enter a fragile postwar phase. Egypt could reclaim its mediation role, Gulf states might accelerate normalization, and Trump could claim a diplomatic coup.

But if one side balks — and signs of reluctance or sabotage already abound — the peace process may shatter and violence reignite.

As of now, the one certainty is uncertainty. The yellow line is not a guarantee — it’s a proposal. The real test will be in execution, enforcement, and political resilience. For the moment, the region watches, the maps are drawn, and diplomats hustle to make the fragile path hold.