Fact check: What were the terms of the proposed Israel peace deal under Joe Biden?

1. How the “grand bargain” was framed: a three‑way swap with high stakes

Reporting dated February–May 2024 described the Biden plan as a tripartite bargain linking U.S.-Saudi security cooperation to normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel and to Palestinian political concessions that would make statehood “irreversible.” The administration reportedly pursued a US‑Saudi defense pact as a foundation, offering Saudi recognition of Israel in exchange for Israeli commitments on Palestinian statehood steps and security guarantees intended to reassure Gulf partners ^[1]. This framing positioned U.S. diplomacy as leveraging security architecture to secure political outcomes for Palestinians, underscoring a strategic calculation that diplomatic normalization and Palestinian concessions were mutually reinforcing ^[1].

2. Concrete ceasefire and Gaza provisions the U.S. presented

In late May 2024 the Biden team circulated a three‑phase ceasefire proposal aimed at ending hostilities between Israel and Hamas. The first phase called for a full, complete ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from populated Gaza areas, and the release of some hostages, with later phases envisaging steps toward longer-term arrangements and Palestinian governance measures ^[3]. The plan was described as having been transmitted to Hamas for review and publicly framed by the White House as a pathway to de‑escalation; Israel’s Prime Minister’s office publicly backed the proposal’s contents at the time even as domestic political resistance in Israel persisted ^[3].

3. Israeli resistance and political friction at home

Multiple reports from May 2024 and later indicated notable resistance from Israeli leaders to the Biden plan’s demands, especially those tied to recognizing a Palestinian state or making irreversible concessions. Israeli officials, including elements within Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s circle, expressed concerns about security costs and political feasibility, prompting U.S. and Saudi officials to press for additional Israeli concessions—such as an immediate ceasefire and concrete steps toward Palestinian self‑determination—to keep the grand bargain alive ^[2]. This resistance highlighted a cleft between U.S. diplomatic objectives and Israeli domestic political constraints, raising questions about implementation timelines and enforceability ^[2].

4. Who stood to gain—and who had an agenda

The Biden administration framed the package as delivering regional stability, security guarantees for Gulf states, and a realistic pathway for Palestinians toward statehood, leveraging Saudi recognition as a major prize ^[1]. Saudi Arabia’s public posture suggested interest in normalization if tangible Palestinian progress and security arrangements were secured. Israeli objections signaled domestic political incentives to limit concessions. Each party’s public claims served distinct agendas: the U.S. to demonstrate diplomatic leadership, Saudi Arabia to gauge regional legitimacy, and Israel to manage domestic political risk, meaning the plan’s supporters and opponents had clear, competing strategic motives ^{[1] [2]}.

5. What the U.S. ceasefire blueprint required from Hamas and Israel

The May 31, 2024 proposal required Hamas to accept a staged process that began with an immediate ceasefire and hostage releases and proceeded to steps envisaging Palestinian governance arrangements—while Israel would withdraw forces from populated areas and accept monitoring and longer‑term Palestinian political steps ^[3]. The document’s design assumed that sequential, verifiable actions by both sides could create momentum toward a broader political settlement linked to Saudi–Israeli normalization. The plan’s success depended on buy‑in from nonstate actors like Hamas and fragile political coalitions in Israel, which weakened its practical enforceability ^{[3] [2]}.

6. Later developments and competing plans complicate the legacy

By late 2025, reporting emphasized a different U.S. approach associated with President Donald Trump—a politically and substantively distinct 20‑point Gaza plan focused on immediate ceasefires, hostage returns, and an international Board to manage Gaza—showing that later diplomatic initiatives did not simply continue Biden’s bargain but proposed alternate frameworks ^{[4] [6]}. Coverage in September 2025 documented Trump and Israeli engagement around that plan, and European and regional reactions differed, illustrating how subsequent actors retooled or supplanted elements of the Biden-era proposal and reflecting evolving diplomatic competition and shifting agendas ^{[7] [5]}.

7. Bottom line: ambitious design, fragile execution

The Biden-era proposal combined bold incentives—Saudi recognition and U.S. security guarantees—with demanding Palestinian milestones and Gaza ceasefire mechanics, offering a comprehensive political and security package that sought irreversible steps toward Palestinian statehood but faced strong Israeli domestic resistance and the practical difficulty of securing Hamas compliance ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Later, contrasting proposals from other U.S. administrations and leaders underscore that the original plan’s concepts remained politically contested and that implementation ultimately depended on complex regional politics and changing U.S. administrations ^{[4] [5]}.