Amid high-stakes diplomatic maneuvers and an urgent call from then-President Donald Trump to halt military operations, Gaza faced continued intense Israeli strikes around October 5, 2025. These tragic developments unfolded even as Hamas signaled a conditional acceptance of parts of Trump’s proposed peace plan, underscoring the profound complexities and deep-seated challenges in the region. The critical events highlighted a stark disconnect between international diplomatic pressure and the grim realities on the ground, leaving a devastating human toll in their wake. This period revealed the intricate dance between military action and political negotiation, offering a crucial glimpse into the persistent efforts and formidable obstacles inherent in the protracted Israel-Hamas conflict.
The Diplomatic Imperative: Trump’s Peace Plan Unveiled
The impetus for this diplomatic flurry stemmed from a comprehensive 20-point peace proposal spearheaded by then-President Trump. Designed to end what was then referred to as a “2-year-old war” (a reference to the intensified conflict following October 2023), the plan outlined several key components: a full ceasefire, the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian captives, a phased Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and the eventual disarmament of Hamas. It also envisioned a new governance structure for Gaza, moving towards a technocratic administration and away from factional control.
Trump expressed his belief that Hamas was “ready for a lasting PEACE,” exerting significant political capital to push his agenda forward. He publicly urged Israel to “immediately stop bombing Gaza” on Friday, October 4, asserting that a ceasefire would become “IMMEDIATELY effective” once Hamas confirmed its acceptance of an “initial withdrawal line” within the enclave. This bold intervention aimed to create a window for de-escalation and the safe return of captives, emphasizing speed and fairness for all parties involved.
Hamas’s Conditional Acceptance
Hamas’s response to the Trump plan was a pivotal moment, drawing cautiously optimistic reactions globally. The Palestinian militant group announced its willingness to accept certain core tenets of the proposal, including an end to the war, Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, and a prisoner exchange. This involved the release of all Israeli hostages—both living and remains—in return for Palestinian detainees.
However, Hamas’s acceptance remained conditional, leaving critical questions unanswered. Notably, the group did not explicitly agree to disarmament, a central demand from Israel and a key element of the Trump plan. Hamas also sought further negotiations on specific details and insisted on its participation in discussions regarding Gaza’s future governance. Senior Hamas official Mahmoud Mardawi characterized the proposal as “vague,” highlighting the need for “clarification and confirmation through a negotiated agreement” and noting Hamas’s exclusion from its initial formulation. This nuanced stance signaled a desire for peace but with significant reservations about relinquishing control and military capabilities.
Netanyahu’s Strategic Stance
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu acknowledged Trump’s initiative, confirming that negotiators would travel to Egypt for talks, intending to limit discussions to “a few days.” While aligning with Trump’s vision, Netanyahu also articulated a distinct interpretation of the plan’s stages, emphasizing Israel’s security imperatives.
Netanyahu stated that the first stage involved Hamas freeing hostages, with Israeli forces “redeploy[ing] in a way” that would allow them to “continue to hold all of the controlling areas deep inside the Strip.” This indicated a potential divergence from an immediate or comprehensive Israeli withdrawal. He further reiterated that the plan’s second phase would involve the demilitarization of Hamas and Gaza, achievable “either politically or militarily,” without specifying a timeframe for Israel’s full military withdrawal, beyond eventually to Gaza’s perimeter. Netanyahu’s remarks underscored Israel’s unwavering commitment to neutralize threats from Gaza, regardless of diplomatic outcomes, and reflected the internal political pressures he faced from hardline coalition members who opposed any let-up in military operations.
Ongoing Violence: Casualties Mount in Gaza
Despite Trump’s direct appeals and the emerging diplomatic pathways, Israeli strikes on Gaza continued unabated, particularly on Saturday, October 5, 2025. Local health officials and civil defense agencies reported a “very violent night” characterized by extensive bombardments and artillery shelling across Gaza City and other areas. This continued military action starkly contrasted with the international calls for de-escalation, leading to significant loss of life and widespread destruction.
Targeted Strikes and Civilian Impact
The casualty figures were alarming. At least 36 people were killed in bombardments and airstrikes following Trump’s late Friday demand for a halt. Reports varied, with some sources indicating up to 70 Palestinian deaths across the besieged Strip during this period. A particularly devastating incident involved an Israeli strike on a house in Gaza City’s Tuffah neighborhood, which killed 18 people, including children, and wounded several others. Seven children, aged between two months and eight years old, were among the deceased in this attack. The strike also damaged multiple nearby buildings, intensifying the humanitarian toll in an already devastated area.
Beyond Gaza City, reports emerged of further casualties. At Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, officials confirmed two children killed and eight wounded when a drone struck a tent in a displacement camp. Another drone strike in al-Mawasi, a designated “safe humanitarian zone” in southern Gaza, also claimed the lives of two children and injured multiple individuals, highlighting the persistent dangers faced by displaced populations even in supposed safe havens.
Israel acknowledged conducting operations, stating it had targeted a Hamas militant posing a threat to its ground troops in the area. The military expressed regret for “any harm caused to uninvolved civilians” and affirmed its commitment to “mitigate harm to uninvolved civilians as much as possible,” while also noting that casualty reports were under review. Hamas, however, accused Netanyahu of dishonesty, asserting that the “continuation of the occupation’s bombing and massacres exposes Netanyahu’s lies about reducing military operations against civilians.”
Displacement and Humanitarian Concerns
The relentless conflict exacerbated an already dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Millions of Palestinians had already been displaced, pushed into overcrowded enclaves in the south that critically lacked basic necessities. The UN reiterated that no place in Gaza was truly safe, dismissing the concept of “safe zones” as farcical given the continued strikes. The ongoing bombardments compounded the suffering, leading to acute shortages of clean water, food, medical care, and shelter. Amnesty International condemned this “catastrophic wave of mass displacement,” highlighting the severe strain on infrastructure and the profound human suffering. The reported death toll of over 66,200 (or 67,000+) people since October 2023, predominantly children and women, underscored the devastating impact of the prolonged conflict and Israel’s subsequent campaign.
Intensified Diplomatic Efforts
Despite the violence, diplomatic channels remained active. President Trump dispatched his envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, to Egypt. Their mission was crucial: to finalize the technical details of the hostage release and engage in discussions for a lasting peace deal. These efforts signaled a significant commitment from the US to de-escalate the conflict and facilitate a resolution.
Envoys and Crucial Negotiations
Egypt also played a vital role, preparing to host separate delegations from Israel and Hamas. These planned meetings aimed to facilitate the anticipated exchange of Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners. The first phase of the Trump plan reportedly involved the return of all captives—both living and deceased—in exchange for nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners. Such an exchange, if realized, would mark a substantial breakthrough in reducing tensions and rebuilding trust. The convergence of US envoys and direct talks between the warring parties in Egypt represented a concentrated push to translate diplomatic rhetoric into tangible outcomes, even amidst the persistent challenges.
Global Reactions and Domestic Pressures
Hamas’s conditional acceptance of parts of the Trump plan sparked a chorus of optimistic statements from world leaders. Many urged an immediate end to the conflict, which had become the deadliest involving Israel since its creation in 1948, and called for the release of all Israeli captives. The Iran-backed Palestinian Islamic Jihad group, considered more hardline than Hamas and also holding hostages, surprisingly endorsed Hamas’s response. This unified stance from key Palestinian factions offered a potential boost to peace hopes and could pave the way for a more comprehensive hostage release.
International Optimism Meets Palestinian Fears
For Gazans, who had witnessed numerous ceasefire efforts fail over two years of conflict, Hamas’s stance offered a “ray of hope.” Sharif al-Fakhouri, a resident of the occupied West Bank, articulated this sentiment, praying for the suffering to lift off the oppressed people of Gaza. However, skepticism remained among some Palestinians. Jerusalem resident Jamal Shihada voiced fears that Netanyahu, leading Israel’s then most far-right government, might ultimately sabotage any peace plan, citing past instances of such political maneuvering. This delicate balance of hope and apprehension underscored the fragile nature of peace initiatives in the region.
Netanyahu’s Balancing Act
Prime Minister Netanyahu faced intense pressure from multiple directions. Domestically, he grappled with demands from hostage families and a war-weary public advocating for an end to the conflict. Simultaneously, he contended with hardline coalition partners, such as far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who publicly denounced halting attacks as a “grave mistake.” Despite these internal divisions, Israeli media reported that the political echelon had instructed the military to reduce offensive activity in Gaza, suggesting an internal push towards de-escalation, even if not fully realized on the ground. This complex political environment highlighted the immense challenges any leader in the region faces when navigating peace negotiations alongside ongoing military operations and diverse public opinions.
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the core demands of Trump’s peace plan for Gaza?
Trump’s 20-point peace proposal outlined a comprehensive ceasefire, the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian captives, a phased Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and the disarmament of Hamas. It also aimed to establish a new technocratic governance structure for Gaza, moving away from existing factional control. This plan represented a significant US effort to de-escalate the conflict and create a framework for long-term stability in the region.
Where were the primary locations of Israeli strikes during this period?
During this intense period around October 5, 2025, Israeli strikes impacted various areas across the Gaza Strip. Notably, Gaza City, particularly the Tuffah neighborhood, experienced heavy bombardment, resulting in significant casualties and destruction. Additionally, drone strikes were reported in displacement camps in Khan Younis and al-Mawasi in southern Gaza, areas designated as “safe humanitarian zones,” highlighting the widespread nature of the military operations.
What challenges did the proposed Gaza peace plan face from both sides?
The peace plan faced significant challenges from both Israeli and Palestinian sides. While Hamas conditionally accepted key elements, it resisted disarmament and sought further negotiations on Gaza’s future governance. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, while supportive of the plan, emphasized continued Israeli security control “deep inside the Strip” and insisted on Hamas’s demilitarization, even if achieved militarily. Domestic pressures on Netanyahu from hardline coalition members also threatened to derail any de-escalation efforts, showcasing the profound political and military complexities inherent in finding a lasting resolution.
Conclusion
The period around October 5, 2025, represented a critical juncture in the protracted Israel-Hamas conflict. Despite then-President Trump’s urgent diplomatic push and Hamas’s conditional acceptance of his peace plan, violence in Gaza persisted, claiming dozens of lives and exacerbating an already severe humanitarian crisis. The intricate interplay between military actions, high-level diplomatic efforts, and the complex political landscapes within Israel and the Palestinian territories underscored the monumental challenges to achieving lasting peace. As US envoys engaged in crucial negotiations in Egypt, the events served as a stark reminder of the human cost of conflict and the immense effort required to navigate the path toward resolution.
References
- www.aljazeera.com
- news.az
- <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dozens-killed-gaza-trump-israel-bombingn68e1bccbe4b0d63b0a92bc67?origin=top-ad-recirc”>www.huffpost.com
- www.sbs.com.au
- ifpnews.com
