Once again, the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has put forward a 21-point plan to end Israel’s war on Gaza. Though attributed to Trump personally, the initiative is in reality the result of joint coordination between Washington and Tel Aviv — raising doubts about its credibility and whether it may, like previous attempts, be overturned later with the agreement of both sides. The continuation, or even extension, of the war has consistently served particular interests that outweigh any genuine desire for settlement.
War with a U.S. Green Light
From the outset, the war on Gaza was not a purely Israeli decision. It was linked directly to explicit or implicit American approval. While Tel Aviv had the military capacity, political motives, and determination, any large-scale operation was always contingent upon a decisive green light from Washington.
This begs the question: do Trump’s recent statements — such as “I won’t allow Israel”, “enough”, and “it’s time to stop” — signal a change in Washington’s approach after years of unconditional support for Israel, covering every crime it commits?
U.S. Interests Under Pressure
In reality, American interests — even Trump’s personal calculations — now push Washington towards a more “reasonable” stance. The White House wants to contain the consequences of the war before they begin to damage U.S. global interests, not only regionally but worldwide. This became apparent during Trump’s recent meetings with world leaders on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York, where the war on Gaza and the urgency of ending it were key agenda items.
Israel, by contrast — or at least Netanyahu’s government — insists on prolonging the war to achieve goals far beyond those officially declared. These include:
- Consolidating right-wing dominance internally.
- Delaying political and judicial accountability facing Netanyahu.
- Most critically, redrawing Gaza’s demographic and geographic map.
A Difficult Negotiation Between Allies
The outcome will not be decided simply by “what America wants.” It will emerge from negotiations and coordination. Ending the war is not an existential necessity for Washington — it can live with the war and its fallout for a long time. Nor is it existential for Israel, which could abandon the war and search for alternatives.
Hence, an eventual compromise formula may be reached through intensive meetings between Trump and Netanyahu, or between senior officials in both capitals. Yet if there is genuine U.S. seriousness this time, the negotiations will be tough, because the two allies’ priorities and timelines diverge.
Leaks from U.S. and Israeli sources suggest that Washington no longer views the war as a tool to “strengthen an ally,” but increasingly as a burden that damages its global image, complicates strategies, and drains military and diplomatic resources. Tel Aviv, however, sees any early settlement as a threat to its leadership, political system, security doctrine, and expansionist ambitions in Gaza.
Israel’s Reservations on the Plan
Unsurprisingly, Israel expressed reservations about the very plan it helped shape with Washington. Netanyahu’s circle views several clauses as harmful to Israel’s so-called “existential security interests.”
Among these: the U.S. proposal does not demand the immediate disarmament of Hamas as a precondition for implementing the plan. Instead, Washington envisions disarmament as a long-term process to be pursued alongside political and security arrangements. For Tel Aviv, this means ending the war without achieving its declared or hidden objectives.
Trump’s statement in New York was particularly striking:
“I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. Enough. It’s time to stop.”
These words shook Israel’s right-wing establishment, which had considered Washington’s support a golden opportunity to create irreversible facts on the ground in the West Bank.
Freezing the War, Not Ending It
Even so, Trump’s plan is expected to undergo adjustments to make it more palatable domestically for Israel. This could involve:
- A phased ceasefire arrangement.
- Partial withdrawals from specific areas.
- A staged prisoner-exchange deal.
However, the plan is unlikely to touch the core issues. It appears designed not to end the war, but to freeze it — buying time for both parties while avoiding escalation that undermines U.S. interests.
Will Trump “Go to the End”?
The central question remains: does Trump have the will to impose real change if Netanyahu refuses to comply? And can Netanyahu, weakened by domestic and international isolation, afford outright rejection if his delaying tactics fail?
The answer lies not merely in initial intentions, but in the balance of power between Washington and Tel Aviv. As long as each side wagers that the other will not go all the way, the war will continue. The question is whether Trump is truly prepared, this time, to “go to the end.”
