Ynet News (English), on Gaza, 2 November 2026

8.7out of 10Severe

Trump's Gaza plan stalls as Israel's political deadlock deepens

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.3 findings

Negotiations over the future of the Gaza Strip have reached a standstill, even as Washington continues pressing for implementation of U.S. President Donald Trump's plan to end the war. Sources familiar with the talks describe a significant diplomatic impasse, with no meaningful progress toward the next phase of the American framework. Meanwhile, , while the IDF continues targeting the terrorist organization's operatives.

The situation has been further complicated by the political deadlock following Israel's October 27 election. With no clear parliamentary majority and no certainty over the formation of a stable government, Israel's political leadership faces significant obstacles to establishing a long-term policy for Gaza.

That uncertainty directly affects decisions about advancing the American plan. While Washington wants to see progress, Israeli officials still do not know what the country's governing policy toward Gaza will look like in the coming months.

Israeli security officials also believe Hamas is preparing an international public relations campaign focused on the humanitarian consequences of the approaching winter. According to sources familiar with the assessments, .

Israeli officials assess that Hamas intends to use the humanitarian situation to increase international pressure on Israel, hoping that criticism will lead to a suspension of targeted strikes or at least a reduction in their frequency.

The sensitivity surrounding Israeli military operations has already affected the pace of strikes in Gaza. In August, amid diplomatic tensions with Washington and statements by the Gaza Board of Peace concerning targeted strikes in central Gaza, the IDF's Southern Command was required to obtain approval from the highest military and political levels before carrying out certain targeted killings.

That policy remained in effect for several weeks and led to a reduction in the pace of .

Major change planned in management of Rafah pilot

Despite the diplomatic stalemate, preparations are advancing for one of the central components of the American plan: the "Green Rafah" pilot project.

Over the past month, the IDF has concentrated efforts in the Tel al-Sultan neighborhood of Rafah, sealing underground tunnels in the area. The objective is to neutralize the underground infrastructure ahead of the pilot's expected launch in the near future.

However, a significant change is approaching in the project's management. In recent months, an Israeli project management company signed an agreement with the Gaza Board of Peace, the international body responsible for overseeing parts of the Strip's reconstruction. Under the agreement, the company will assume responsibility for managing the tunnel-sealing project on the board's behalf.

The IDF is expected to withdraw from the civilian management and execution of the project, transferring responsibility to a dedicated administration operating under the Board of Peace and American management.

The company has already completed its logistical preparations at Kerem Shalom, including arrangements at a concrete plant that will support the work. Within the next two weeks, it is expected to formally take over management of the project from the IDF.

As part of the transition, contracts with construction companies and concrete suppliers will be transferred to the new administration. Responsibility for delivering materials, locating underground tunnels and conducting drilling operations is also expected to shift to the civilian management team.

The arrangement is intended to move a central element of the reconstruction preparations out of the IDF's direct civilian management structure, even as the military continues its security operations in the area.

While preparations for the civilian pilot proceed, IDF military operations in Gaza have not stopped.

Southern Command forces continue operating against Hamas terrorists who, according to the military, are attempting to restore the organization's capabilities and advance plans for attacks.

Several members of Hamas' military wing were killed in Israeli strikes over the past week, including Nukhba operatives and .

The IDF maintains that the Hamas terrorists targeted throughout the war, particularly in recent weeks, were involved in rebuilding the organization's military capabilities and planning attacks against Israeli troops and civilians, in what the military describes as systematic violations of the ceasefire.

The military also emphasizes that Southern Command forces remain deployed in accordance with the agreement and that operations to eliminate threats will continue.

The developments highlight the growing gap between Washington's diplomatic objectives and the situation on the ground. The United States is pressing to advance the next stage of Trump's plan, transfer responsibility for civilian projects and launch the pilot program in Rafah.

Yet , the IDF continues carrying out targeted strikes and the central question of disarming the terrorist organization remains unresolved.

Above these obstacles hangs Israel's political uncertainty, which complicates decisions about the Strip's future and the extent to which Jerusalem can commit to the American framework.

For now, despite sustained US pressure and preparations on the ground, there is no indication of a significant breakthrough that would allow the diplomatic process to move forward.

Read the original article on ynetnews.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (3)

Ynet calls the people Israeli occupation forces kill in Gaza "Hamas terrorists" in its own voice, though its only basis is what the military says. It states as fact the army's claim that Hamas is rearming and rebuilding, a claim it elsewhere attributes to the military. Gaza's residents appear only through Israeli officials' forecast of a Hamas publicity campaign about their winter hardship.

  1. Labels people on one side's word

    Severe

    “aerial operations against Hamas terrorists”

    Why this matters
    Ynet calls the targets of IOF air strikes "Hamas terrorists" in its own voice, with no attribution.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes it as established that everyone hit in these aerial operations was a terrorist.
    The context
    The article's only basis for who was targeted is the military's own account. It names no one and gives no independent check.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“The IDF maintains that the Hamas terrorists targeted”

    Show it in the article

    “IDF continues targeting Hamas terrorists”

    Why this matters
    Ynet puts the label in a subheading, in its own voice, as the frame for the whole section on the killings.
    The impression it gives
    A reader enters the section already told that the people being killed are terrorists.
    The context
    The next sentence shows the claim comes from the army. It describes them as attempting attacks "according to the military". The label rests on that one party's word.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“according to the military, are attempting to restore”

    Show it in the article

    “terrorists who participated in the October 7, 2023, invasion of Israel”

    Why this matters
    Ynet states as plain fact that the men killed in the past week took part in 7 October and calls them terrorists. It gives no source.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes it is confirmed who the dead were and what they had done.
    The context
    The article names none of the dead and offers no evidence beyond the military's account. The very next sentence frames the targeting as what "The IDF maintains".

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“in what the military describes as systematic violations”

    Show it in the article

  2. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “Hamas remains armed and is attempting to rebuild its ranks”

    Why this matters
    Ynet states in its own voice that Hamas is rebuilding its ranks. This is the claim the military gives as its reason for continued strikes.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes the rearmament as established fact and the strikes as a response to it.
    The context
    Later the article attributes this same claim to the army: Hamas members are attempting to restore capabilities "according to the military". Nothing independent supports it.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“according to the military, are attempting to restore”

    Show it in the article

    “Hamas continues to retain its military capabilities”

    Why this matters
    In the closing analysis Ynet again states the army's assessment as settled fact, now in its own summary of the situation.
    The impression it gives
    A reader ends the article believing the military's case for continuing strikes has been confirmed.
    The context
    The article's only source for Hamas's capabilities is the military, as S30 shows when it reports what "The IDF maintains".

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“The IDF maintains that the Hamas terrorists”

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    The Israeli military says Hamas remains armed and is trying to rebuild its ranks, and it cites this to justify continued strikes.

  3. One side gets the space

    Minor

    “the terrorist organization is expected to highlight weather-related damage, inadequate infrastructure and shortages of warm clothing and essential supplies for Gaza residents”

    Why this matters
    Ynet tells Gaza residents' winter hardship only as an Israeli forecast of a Hamas publicity tactic.
    The impression it gives
    A reader comes away seeing the shortages as propaganda material rather than conditions people are living in.
    The context
    The article quotes no Palestinian, aid body or other source on conditions in Gaza. Israeli officials alone describe them, and they describe them as a pressure campaign.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“Hamas intends to use the humanitarian situation”
    • Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “Palestinian”.

    Show it in the article

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Ynet News (English)

  1. 2 Nov'Inside, I was still at war': Nova survivor's descent into addiction and road to recovery0.0
  2. 1 NovFormer IDF chief: Israel misread Hamas, prioritized Iran before Oct. 7 attack3.0
  3. 30 OctReport: Israel gives Gaza terrorists choice between dying alone or with family8.0
  4. 30 OctReport: Israel gives Gaza terrorists choice between dying alone or with family8.7
  5. 29 Oct‘Genocide’ and ‘apartheid’: Harvard's hometown backs divestment from IDF suppliers3.0

Everything we scored from Ynet News (English)