Make An Offer They Can’t Refuse

In The Godfather, Marlon Brando’s Don Corleone utters the famous line: “I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse.” The phrase has since transcended cinema, becoming shorthand for a mixture of temptation and threat, the promise of reward if accepted, and dire consequences if rejected. Today, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with the backing of the Trump administration, is invoking something similar on the geopolitical stage in Gaza.

The Proposal on the Table

The heart of the plan is straightforward, though explosive in its implications. Israel would agree to withdraw from large parts of Gaza and allow for a negotiated framework primarily based on Egypt’s initiative. In return, Hamas would release all hostages. The deal envisions Gaza without Hamas’s grip but also without the Palestinian Authority (PA), marking a sharp divergence from Cairo’s blueprint.

By sidelining both Hamas and the PA, Netanyahu’s plan suggests a future for Gaza that is fundamentally different from the past two decades of governance. It also poses an unanswered question: Who, then, would govern Gaza?

A Calculated Ultimatum

This initiative comes with an unmistakable warning. If Hamas rejects the deal, Israel will expand its military operations inside Gaza, aiming to impose the terms by force. In effect, Netanyahu is presenting Hamas with his own Corleone-style bargain – accept the political reshaping of Gaza voluntarily, or face destruction on the battlefield.

One senior Israeli official, speaking on background, described the plan bluntly: “It is a fork in the road – peace and reconstruction, or war without limit.”

Regional Stakes

The Trump administration’s support lends international heft to Netanyahu’s maneuver. Washington has long sought to frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of broader regional realignment, particularly involving Egypt and Gulf states. Yet Egypt has made clear that it sees the PA as an indispensable component of post-Hamas Gaza – a view directly at odds with Netanyahu’s vision.

This divergence highlights a larger diplomatic rift. Cairo is wary of a political vacuum in Gaza, fearing instability on its border. Israel, by contrast, believes both Hamas and the PA have squandered legitimacy, and that any sustainable arrangement must exclude them.

Voices from the Ground

On the streets of Gaza or what is left of them, and in Judea and Samaria, the debate is filtered through slogans and survival. In Arabic graffiti sprayed on walls across Gaza “صوت يعلو فوق صوت المقاومة” (“No voice rises above the voice of resistance”) alongside other graffiti that translates to “We want a dignified life.” The slogans capture the essence of the dilemma: defiance against occupation versus a yearning for stability and normalcy.

For many Palestinians, the question is not whether Israel will withdraw, but what kind of life will replace the cycle of war and blockade.

What Comes Next

The challenge for Netanyahu’s plan and for its critics is less about the military dimension than the political vacuum it risks creating. Without Hamas or the PA, Gaza requires an alternative authority: an international administration, a regional Arab force, or a hybrid arrangement combining local civil society with external guarantors. None of these options is easy, but leaving the void unfilled risks chaos.

Conclusion: The Only Sustainable Offer

If Gaza is to break the cycle, the “offer that cannot be refused” must extend beyond ultimatums. It should combine three pillars:

Security guarantees – The end of Hamas and any other terror militias, enforced by international monitors and the IDF.

Governance innovation – A transitional authority supported by regional partners and vetted by international bodies, excluding both Hamas and the PA, but rooted in local Palestinian leadership.

Economic revival – This must be more than pouring concrete and opening factories; it must reshape mindsets as well as skylines. Think of it as Gaza’s version of “post-war rehab” – a transition program less about resistance slogans and more about building malls, startups, and universities. The vision: a Gaza that looks more like Dubai than Tehran.

This would require a reconstruction fund overseen by neutral actors, pumping in capital for infrastructure and jobs, but with one condition: participation in a civic re-education process – not dehumanizing, but de-radicalizing. Call it a kind of political physiotherapy, where recovery means learning to stand upright without leaning on militias or martyrdom.

As Friedrich Nietzsche once wrote, “He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.” Gaza’s challenge now is to find that “why” – and to make it irresistible.