U.S. official overseeing Trump Gaza ceasefire plan criticizes Israel for attacks, warns against alternative ‘next war’

The senior U.S. official overseeing President Donald Trump’s Gaza ceasefire proposal criticized Israel on Wednesday for carrying out attacks in the war-torn Palestinian territory and said the United States is warning against actions that would derail negotiations. The official’s remarks came as Washington presses its ceasefire framework, which the administration has described as a path to a halt in hostilities. In the same briefing period, the official warned that if Israel does not align with the U.S. approach, the alternative would not be a negotiated pause but the next war, according to The Washington Times. The official did not describe specific Israeli strikes in the report, but the criticism was tied to what Washington characterized as ongoing attacks that are aggravating the security and humanitarian conditions in Gaza. The U.S. argument, as framed in the report, is that the ceasefire effort cannot succeed while large-scale military actions continue. The comments also underscored how the Trump administration is attempting to convert its ceasefire proposal into a concrete timetable and enforcement of expectations for parties involved. In that context, the official’s message to Israel was presented as both a warning and a report that the U.S. diplomatic line is premised on immediate operational restraint. Gaza’s civilian infrastructure has been severely damaged throughout the war, and the ceasefire proposal has been discussed amid heightened cross-border security risks, including the possibility of renewed escalation if diplomacy fails. The Washington Times report placed the official’s criticism inside that broader security dynamic, linking the diplomatic effort to the practical decisions being made on the ground. The U.S. warning about a “next war” also reflects a political and operational accountability challenge for ceasefire plans. Even where ceasefire frameworks are proposed, implementation typically depends on the ability of parties to halt or adjust tactics in ways that reduce immediate threats and prevent retaliation cycles. The next steps, according to the framing of the report, hinge on whether Israel’s actions move toward compliance with the U.S. proposal and whether Hamas and other armed groups also engage in steps that allow a pause in fighting to hold. Absent such alignment, Washington has indicated that negotiations may give way to renewed hostilities, shifting the burden back to military outcomes rather than diplomacy.