Netanyahu Says Israel Will Not Leave Gaza Until Hamas Is Disarmed

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said August 4 that Israel would not withdraw from its current positions in Gaza until Hamas had been completely disarmed, setting a condition that could complicate negotiations over the territory’s future and the implementation of any ceasefire or political agreement.

Netanyahu also pushed back against a recently announced deal involving the United States. His remarks signaled continuing disagreement over the terms and sequence of any postwar arrangement, particularly over whether Israeli forces should withdraw before Hamas gives up its weapons.

A condition for withdrawal

The statement places Hamas’ complete disarmament ahead of an Israeli withdrawal from the positions Israeli forces currently hold in Gaza. It does not establish that Israel has formally rejected the U.S.-backed deal, but it makes clear that Netanyahu is challenging at least part of the arrangement as recently announced.

That distinction matters because the order of steps can determine whether a ceasefire or political agreement moves forward. A withdrawal, the security role of Hamas and the future control of Gaza are closely connected in any plan for what comes after the fighting. By tying withdrawal to complete disarmament, Netanyahu has publicly set a demanding condition for any change in Israel’s military position.

The Associated Press report on the statement did not identify it as a formal cabinet decision. It also did not provide the full terms or an implementation timetable for the U.S.-backed deal that Netanyahu criticized. The public position therefore shows a major disagreement over the proposed sequence, while leaving the deal’s detailed mechanics unclear.

Casualty toll remains central

The remarks came amid a continuing humanitarian toll in Gaza. Gaza’s Health Ministry reported that more than 73,377 Palestinians had been killed in Israel’s retaliatory offensive, including deaths since the ceasefire. The figure is attributed to the ministry and was not independently verified in the report.

The casualty count adds urgency to negotiations over security and political arrangements. Each delay or dispute over implementation affects the prospects for moving from military control toward a longer-term settlement, although Netanyahu’s statement by itself does not establish that a ceasefire has ended or been invalidated.

Israel’s stated condition also leaves Hamas’ disarmament as the immediate benchmark for any withdrawal. The position raises practical questions for negotiators: how disarmament would be verified, who would oversee security during a transition and what would happen if the parties disagreed over whether Hamas had complied. Those questions are consequential because a deal that does not resolve the sequence could face resistance from the Israeli government or Hamas.

What happens next

The next known step is continued negotiation over the proposed arrangement rather than a completed settlement. Netanyahu’s comments put the Israeli position on withdrawal directly at odds with any plan that expects Israeli forces to leave before Hamas is fully disarmed.

For the United States, the dispute tests whether its involvement can bridge the gap between a U.S.-backed proposal and Israel’s publicly stated security condition. For Palestinians in Gaza, the issue is tied to the possibility of an enduring ceasefire and a political future after the offensive.

Until the parties agree on the order of withdrawal, disarmament and postwar security, the future arrangement remains unsettled. Netanyahu’s August 4 statement is therefore less a final decision on the deal than a clear declaration of the condition Israel says must be met before it gives up its current positions in Gaza.