Two clashing narratives have emerged about Israel’s strike on a meeting of senior Hamas terrorists in Doha, Qatar, in September, following the release of a preview of an interview with U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner on CBS’ “60 Minutes” program that aired on Sunday evening.

Both narratives posit that the strike hastened the arrival of President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan to free the hostages and end the war. Figures close to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the attack pushed an anxious Qatar, Hamas’ patron and host of its senior officials, to do more to get the terrorist organization across the finish line. 

Trump’s negotiators, however, presented a scenario in which the president, unhappy about the strike, pressured Israel to end the war.  

Of the Israeli strike on Doha, Witkoff said that he and Kushner, who in recent months has also played a key role in the administration’s Middle East efforts, “felt a little bit betrayed.”

Kushner added, “I think [Trump] felt like the Israelis were getting a little bit out of control in what they were doing, and it was time to be very strong and stop them from doing things he thought were not in their long-term interest.”

Witkoff said that Qatar, which served as a key mediator between Hamas and Israel for much of the negotiations, said that, following the strike, “we had lost the confidence of the Qataris, so Hamas went underground. It was very difficult to get to them … and it became very, very evident as to how important, how critical [Qatar’s] role was.” 

Jerusalem, however, had a different version of the events, as told by Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, Netanyahu’s closest confidante, in an Israel Hayom column by journalist Amit Segal.

Israelis involved in the negotiations viewed Qatar as a “spoiler,” such as when they talked Hamas out of accepting a deal proposed by Egypt earlier in the year, according to Segal. 

Dermer, Segal wrote, “links the strike to the agreement … The Qataris, it turns out, were convinced that by agreeing to host the negotiations, they had obtained immunity from Israeli strikes on their soil. From their perspective, the strike was a blatant, offensive breach of the commitment. … The Americans’ genius was to convert that negative energy into fuel to propel negotiations to their goal. ‘You want Israel to stop? Then let’s end the war.'”

Netanyahu’s office and the White House closely coordinated throughout subsequent talks to end the war, Segal reported. Then came an agreement backed by several Arab states calling for Hamas to disarm and without the immediate involvement of the Palestinian Authority.

Reactions in Israel to the “60 minutes” preview fell on predictable lines. Netanyahu’s critics said that the U.S. officials’ comments demonstrated that the prime minister did not want to enter the agreement, but instead was pushed into it by Trump.

Israeli Opposition Leader Yair Lapid argued that Witkoff and Kushner’s comments made clear that “after the failed attack on Doha, Trump thought that Netanyahu lost control and forced an agreement on Netanyahu that he didn’t want. … An American administration has never described an Israeli government like this.” 

Ha’aretz journalist Amir Tibon, who lived in one of the kibbutzim attacked by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, posted on X: “Witkoff and Kushner say in their own voices: Trump understood that Netanyahu was not on the right track and acted aggressively against him to reach a ceasefire and free the hostages.”

Nava Rozolyo, a prominent figure in the protests against Netanyahu years before the Gaza war began, wrote: “Thank you … for forcing Hamas and Netanyahu to reach an agreement on the return of all hostages and ending the war. Thank you for saving us from our own government and for saving lives.” 

On the Israeli right, many took issue with Witkoff and Kushner’s retelling of events.

Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs President Dan Diker posted on X that “the Israelis ‘getting out of control’ is what helped bring the hostage deal to the table, scaring the Qataris out of their minds.”  

Some highlighted Kushner and Witkoff’s business dealings in Qatar. Kushner’s investment company, Affinity Partners, manages billions of dollars in investments from Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund. Witkoff’s son sought Qatari investments in commercial real estate projects earlier this year, and in 2023, Qatar bought the Park Lane Hotel in Manhattan from Witkoff and his partners. 

Yishai Fleisher, spokesman for the Jewish community in Hebron and an informal advisor to Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who opposes the ceasefire deal, posted on X in response to the video: “Two American Jews, with no blood on the line in Israel (their wife and kids don’t drive on the roads with Jihadis), but lots of money on the line and business with Qatar, wag their finger at the Jewish State as they cut an awful deal that is certain to bring war.”

Other moments in the interview courted further controversy in Israel, such as when Witkoff described an Israeli cabinet meeting that he attended, in which Ben-Gvir talked about “all the death and all the carnage” from the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks and was “emotional.” In response, Witkoff described his son Andrew’s death from an overdose and told the Israeli cabinet minister to “let it go, you just can’t play the victim all the time.” 

Witkoff also brought up his son’s death in the interview in relation to his meeting with Hamas lead negotiator Khalil al-Haya, whose son was killed in the Doha strike.

“We expressed our condolences to him for the loss of his son, and I told him that I had lost my son and we are both members of a really bad club, parents who had buried children,” he said. 

Kushner said of Witkoff and the senior Hamas terrorist: “When Steve and him talked about their sons, it turned from a negotiation with a terrorist group to seeing two human beings kind of showing a vulnerability with each other.”

Kushner also said that he sought to relay a message to Israel’s leadership that “now that the war is over, if you want to integrate Israel with the broader Middle East, you have to find a way to help the Palestinian people thrive and do better.”

“How are you doing with that message?” Leslie Stahl asked.

Kushner smiled and replied: “We’re just getting started.”

This report was updated on Oct. 20, 2025, after the CBS “60 Minutes” interview aired in full.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, hostage families and others in Israel expressed cautious optimism over the weekend, after Hamas agreed to enter talks to free the 48 remaining hostages in exchange for a partial Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

An Israeli team consisting of Strategic Minister Ron Dermer, diplomatic advisor Ophir Falk, Coordinator for the Hostages and Missing Gal Hirsch and representatives of the Mossad and Shin Bet are expected to head to Cairo on Monday for proximity talks to negotiate the implementation of President Donald Trump’s 20-step plan to end the war. Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner, who has been involved in the talks, will represent the U.S.

Netanyahu said in a video statement Saturday night that Israel and the U.S. intend to “limit this negotiation to a few days” and that it would be about “technical details” of the Trump plan. 

“We will not tolerate any more delay tactics, time-wasting or evasion on the part of Hamas,” he said. 

As Trump noted on Truth Social, the ceasefire would immediately take effect once it is agreed to by Hamas. The terror group would have to release the remaining 48 hostages – 20 of whom are thought to be alive – in exchange for Israel’s freeing of over 1,700 Palestinian prisoners, hundreds of whom are serving life sentences on terrorism charges, and the rest arrested in Gaza in the last two years. Then, Israel would withdraw to an initial line, as part of a gradual withdrawal toward a buffer zone along Gaza’s perimeter. 

The details likely to be negotiated include the precise line to which Israel will withdraw initially and, at the end of the process, which countries will make up the International Stabilization Force meant to be the “long-term internal security solution” to keep Gaza demilitarized and prevent the resurgence of terrorism, according to the Trump plan, and who will be part of the transitional technocratic committee meant to govern Gaza. Former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair and Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan are expected to be involved in the Peace Board led by Trump that will oversee the transitional government.

Netanyahu vowed that “Hamas will be disarmed and the Strip demilitarized. This will happen either via a diplomatic route, according to the Trump plan, or via a military route by us.” 

The talks come after Hamas released a statement early Saturday in which it embraced parts of the Trump plan — exchanging Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners, an influx of aid and encouraging Palestinians to remain in Gaza — but rejected the concessions the plan would entail, including the demilitarization and deradicalization of Gaza. Hamas said it would punt that decision to “a collective national position … to be discussed within a comprehensive Palestinian national framework, in which Hamas will be included.” 

Despite Hamas accepting only a fraction of his plan, Trump wrote on Truth Social that he believes the terrorist group is “ready for a lasting PEACE” and called on Israel to “immediately stop the bombing of Gaza so that we can get the hostages out safely and quickly.” 

IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir then “instructed to advance readiness for the implementation of the first phase of the Trump plan for the release of the hostages,” according to an IDF statement early Saturday morning. At the same time, Zamir said, “all troops must maintain high alertness and vigilance, in addition to reinforcing the need for a rapid response to neutralize any threat.”

In his video statement, Netanyahu presented Trump’s plan as being coordinated with Jerusalem. “As a result of the intense military pressure we applied and the diplomatic pressure, Hamas was pressured into agreeing to the plan we presented,” Netanyahu said.

The prime minister added that “we are on the verge of a very great achievement. … It is not yet final; we are working on it diligently, and I hope, with G-d’s help, that in the coming days, during the Sukkot holiday, I will be able to inform you about the return of all our hostages, both living and deceased, in one phase, while the IDF remains deep within the Strip and in the controlling areas within it.”

Tel Aviv’s Hostage Square was filled with demonstrators on Saturday night, calling for the deal to be implemented.

Liran Berman, brother of hostages Ziv and Gali Berman, said that “with hope comes fear. Will the deal be signed? When will I see my brothers again? We are suspended between hope and dread. We have lived through Hamas’s lies before. We cannot let another deal collapse. Not again. President Trump, we stand with you. Do not stop. It is now or never.”

Former hostage Gadi Moses said, “I know the road is still long and riddled with obstacles, but today I can say that for the first time since my release from captivity, I have heard declarations that may give us some hope. This is the time to cease fire and focus on returning all the hostages and ending the war.”

Also Saturday, Netanyahu held meetings and discussions with the leaders of right-wing parties in his governing coalition, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, both of whom have called to annex and settle the Gaza Strip.

Ben-Gvir said that “we will be happy like everyone to see all the hostages returning to us,” but “if Hamas continues to exist after all the hostages are freed, Otzma Yehudit [Ben-Gvir’s party] will not be part of the government. We will not be part of a national defeat that will turn into a ticking time bomb until the next massacre.”

Smotrich did not threaten to leave the coalition, but he said that Netanyahu made a “severe mistake” by acquiescing to Trump’s call to stop the attack on Gaza City rather than holding “negotiations under fire.” 

“It’s a recipe for Hamas to waste time and wear down Israel’s stance,” he posted on X. 

Opposition leader Yair Lapid has said his party will vote to prop up the government if parties within the coalition attempt to bring it down to stop a hostage and ceasefire deal. 

On Saturday afternoon, Lapid said: “When Shabbat ends and you hear Smotrich and Ben-Gvir’s threats, remember they have nothing to threaten with. We won’t let them sabotage the deal. A clear majority of the Knesset and a clear majority of the nation support the Trump plan.”

Hamas said in a statement on Friday night that it was ready to enter final negotiations over the Trump-authored peace plan and that it was willing to release all the hostages remaining in Gaza. 

The Palestinian terror group said it would release the living hostages and the bodies it has held hostage since the Oct. 7 attacks nearly two years ago. Twenty of the 48 hostages are believed to still be alive. 

Hamas added it is willing to hand over administration of the Gaza Strip to a “Palestinian body composed of independents.” But the terror group also insisted — contradicting the terms of the Trump proposal — that Hamas will maintain a role in discussions over the future of Gaza through a “comprehensive Palestinian national framework.”

The deal is not yet final, and in its response to the Trump plan, Hamas said that the group is ready to enter negotiations to discuss the remaining details.

In response, Trump said in a post on Truth Social that he believes Hamas wants to make a deal, and called on Israel to “immediately stop the bombing of Gaza.” 

“Based on the Statement just issued by Hamas, I believe they are ready for a lasting PEACE,” Trump wrote. “Israel must immediately stop the bombing of Gaza, so that we can get the Hostages out safely and quickly! Right now, it’s far too dangerous to do that. We are already in discussions on details to be worked out.”

A spokesperson for the Israeli embassy declined to comment.

This story was updated at 5:32 p.m.

In September 2016, when President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. and Israel had signed a 10-year deal pledging a total of $38 billion in military assistance to Israel, the news was generally uncontroversial and greeted with bipartisan plaudits — a striking contrast to the nasty presidential campaign playing out across the country at the time. 

That deal, known as the U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding, is now close to expiring, and the next one — if there is a next one — will be negotiated in an entirely different political environment. Israel remains deeply enmeshed in a nearly two-year war in Gaza, with little indication of an end in sight, making forward-looking negotiations more difficult. 

A new MOU is not a given. U.S. support for Israel has dramatically declined on the left, and it is fracturing in isolationist corners of the right as well. Even some staunchly pro-Israel Republicans have grown wary of foreign aid in general, a shift that could affect U.S. policy toward Israel. 

“When many of the threats that have faced Israel in the past have been largely neutralized, Israel will need to figure out how to make the case that it is in need of over half of the U.S. security assistance budget,” a former Biden administration State Department official told Jewish Insider. “They will need to demonstrate the threats that they face in order to warrant this level of funding when Hamas has been decimated, when Hezbollah is a shadow of what it once was, when Iranian air defenses are nonexistent and Israel has proven its ability to be able to infiltrate Iran.”

The conversation about the next U.S.-Israel MOU came to the fore last month, when Pete Buttigieg, the former transportation secretary and a potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, became the first prominent Democrat to say the U.S. should not enact another 10-year military aid deal with Israel. 

No other potential Democratic presidential contenders have weighed in on the issue, though it could become a litmus test for a party whose base is steadily turning more hostile to Israel.

The current U.S.-Israel MOU, which expires in 2028, is the countries’ third. President Bill Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak signed the first 10-year MOU in 1999. It was meant as a way to phase out U.S. economic aid to Israel, which Jerusalem no longer needed as an emerging economic and technological powerhouse. Another MOU was negotiated by President George W. Bush and completed in 2007. 

“Ten-year MOUs have communicated an ongoing, consistent and bipartisan commitment to support Israel’s security by crossing administrations and demonstrating that it’s an ongoing relationship,” said former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro. “It allows planning for big ticket acquisitions.”

The long-standing commitment allows Israel to plan to make large purchases that could take several years to acquire, such as fighter jets. 

The MOU is not actually a binding agreement, it’s a framework. Congress must still approve the $3.3 billion in military financing and $500 million in missile defense laid out in the MOU each year during the annual appropriations process, and could do so even in the absence of an MOU. 

“It’s simply a political commitment that Congress and the president can honor or not honor, and not having an MOU does not necessarily mean that we won’t have foreign military financing,” said Brad Bowman, an analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and former national security advisor to Sen. Todd Young (R-IN). 

“But if we’ve had MOUs with Israel for so long under presidents of both parties, to not have one, I think, would really be quite a political statement about what’s going on with Israel, and would undermine the efforts of both Americans and Israelis to do necessary planning,” Bowman added. 

“Both the left and the right are having deep reservations about the U.S.-Israel relationship, and that could very much have negative consequences for the MOU,” a former Biden administration State Department official said. 

Congress has in the past weighed in to signal its support for the MOU. In 2016, Congress voted overwhelmingly to endorse the new MOU, with 405 members of the House voting for the measure. Just four representatives — all Republicans — voted against the bill. Only one of them, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), is still in the House.  

Since then, American support for Israel has shifted significantly, particularly since Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks in 2023. A Quinnipiac poll released in August found that 60% of voters oppose sending more military aid to Israel for its war with Hamas, while only about one-third (32%) support it. 

Meanwhile, only 13% of Democrats say their sympathies lie more with the Israelis than the Palestinians, a decline from 34% when asked the same question in November 2023. Far more Republicans side with the Israelis — 66% — but that’s down from 80% in November 2023. 

“Both the left and the right are having deep reservations about the U.S.-Israel relationship, and that could very much have negative consequences for the MOU,” the former Biden State Department official said. 

Congressional efforts to place conditions on American military aid to Israel have gained steam since Oct. 7. 

Twenty-seven Senate Democrats voted last month on a resolution to block the shipment of certain weapons to Israel. The measure was largely symbolic and destined to fail in the Republican-led Senate. Still, even with an MOU, Congress would not be prevented from passing a bill further restricting U.S. aid to Israel. 

“We continue to have an interest in ensuring that Israel can defend itself. They continue to be an important partner in the Middle East addressing many threats that threaten them, but also threaten us,” said former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro. “If our relationship with Israel were to become far less supportive and far less intimately connected, we would quickly see a decline in our influence much more broadly in the region. That doesn’t mean we can’t also have critical conversations and use our leverage as a provider of assistance when we have concerns about Israeli military actions.”

That’s not considering the leeway given to the State Department, which approves arms sales. Last year, President Joe Biden held up a shipment of 2,000-pound bombs for months over concerns about Israel’s incursion into Rafah. 

The Trump administration, which would be the one to negotiate and sign off on a new MOU before its expiration, has not yet indicated any reservations with the process.

Israel is by far the largest recipient of U.S. foreign military financing. The U.S. and Jordan have their own security MOU, though Jordan receives roughly a tenth of the annual military aid that Israel gets. Shapiro, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel, said the reason for the high level of support goes beyond Israel, and deep into the Middle East. He urged the U.S. to raise concerns with Israel about its conduct when issues arise, but not to cut into the aid itself.

“We continue to have an interest in ensuring that Israel can defend itself. They continue to be an important partner in the Middle East addressing many threats that threaten them, but also threaten us,” he said. “If our relationship with Israel were to become far less supportive and far less intimately connected, we would quickly see a decline in our influence much more broadly in the region. That doesn’t mean we can’t also have critical conversations and use our leverage as a provider of assistance when we have concerns about Israeli military actions.”

It would be tempting for Israel to try to increase its defense production to account for such a turbulent political environment. Israel has grown its military exports substantially in recent years and some Israeli lawmakers have indicated they’d like to phase out reliance on U.S. aid, but it would be very difficult for Israel to domestically produce everything it needs.

“The problem is that’s never going to happen,” Bowman said. “Israel, as impressive as it is, is never going to be completely self-sufficient in producing its own weapon systems. The United States is not. If we’re not, Israel never will be. Israel is a technology superpower. It’s not an industrial superpower.” 

Israel’s Security Cabinet is set to vote this week on occupying the remaining parts of Gaza that it does not currently control, after Hamas refused last month’s ceasefire and hostage deal proposal and did not return to negotiations.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir and Defense Minister Israel Katz held a three-hour meeting on Tuesday, which was reportedly very tense due to disagreement over the plan, though Zamir ultimately said he will follow through with the government’s decision. 

Zamir argued that the IDF should surround the areas in Gaza in which it currently does not have a presence, including Gaza City and towns in the center of Gaza in which hostages are believed to be held. Entering those areas, Zamir warned, would endanger the lives of the 20 hostages who are thought to be alive. Hamas has threatened to kill hostages if the IDF approaches, as it had executed six hostages a year ago. 

Beyond the fraught issue of the hostages, there is the matter of what “occupation” means. 

Broadly, the war in Gaza was initially conducted via raids in which the IDF would warn civilians to leave a given area, enter, destroy terrorist infrastructure and combat terrorists, and eventually leave to move to a different part of Gaza, letting the population return. Hamas terrorists would also end up returning to those areas, leading the IDF to have to enter some of the same places repeatedly.

In March, Israel embarked on Operation Gideon’s Chariots, in which Israel entered Gaza from its perimeter on all sides, and moved inwards, capturing territory and maintaining control of it, in contrast to its previous strategy. That operation has, in effect, resulted in Israel controlling 75% of Gaza. 

The remaining 25% is what Israel would move to control under the plan Netanyahu supports.

Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser, head of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security and the former head of research for IDF intelligence, told the Misgav Mideast Horizons podcast this week that the commonly used 75%-25% formulation is “a misrepresentation.”

“Almost all the population of Gaza is in areas controlled by Hamas, which allows Hamas to keep its grip over the population, and this is the source of its power … It’s not about the percentage of the area, it’s about who controls the population,” he said.

While “occupation” is the correct military term for what Israel would be doing by taking control of territory, the connotation of the word in the Israeli context tends to be the West Bank, which Israel has controlled since 1967 and where over half a million Jewish citizens of Israel live. 

Some Cabinet ministers have advocated for allowing Israelis to move to Gaza, where 21 Israeli settlements were forcibly evacuated in 2005; Netanyahu has repeatedly rejected such a plan.

What senior Israeli officials have long said is that, while Israel seeks to have other countries and some Palestinians administer Gaza, they will not do so until it’s clear that Hamas has been ousted. As such, Israel may have to take control for some time until other arrangements are made.

Kuperwasser said that while Netanyahu’s decision may be risky, Zamir’s preference of surrounding the remaining 25% of Gaza is more of the same.

“In Gaza, there are no good options,” he said. “The option of continuing what we have done for the last 22 months is not a good option, because it didn’t put enough pressure on Hamas to release the hostages and accept the idea that they should give up their arms. The option of succumbing to Hamas demands … is a very bad idea, too. And taking over Gaza is also a bad idea, because you end up being responsible for the population of Gaza and there is going to be a lot of criticism around the globe … you cannot guarantee that you are going to get the hostages alive.” 

Kuperwasser argued that the only way at this point for Israel to move towards freeing the hostages and removing Hamas from power is if Hamas is “convinced that we are about to take over Gaza by force and remove them from power by force … So we have to make this decision, and yes, it comes with a price.”

Starting on the new strategy may be enough to convince Hamas to reach a deal, Kuperwasser said, but in order to get to that point, he argued, Israel has to prepare to actually occupy Gaza. 

“We have to convince Hamas that we are serious, that we are really preparing for this eventuality,” including for civil administration of Gaza, he said.