Discussions continue within the corridors of the Israeli occupation state regarding the recent summit between US President Donald Trump and Israeli occupation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the outcomes it produced at a sensitive moment marked by the intersection of American strategic interests, Israeli political constraints, and broader regional operations.
Yoav Kabschok, head of the Interdisciplinary Studies Department at Kinneret Academic College, a conflict resolution expert, and a former researcher at the Middle East Studies Centre at the London School of Economics, stated that “looking at the past, it becomes clear that this meeting was not merely symbolic, but rather a dialogue that laid important foundations for continuing to shape the reality in Gaza and the occupation’s relationship with its regional and international partners”.
In an article published by the Zman Israel and translated by Arabi21, he added that “to understand the importance of the meeting, it is first necessary to examine Trump’s objectives. For him, the second phase of the Gaza agreement is not a technical clause in the process, but a step indicating a transition from a temporary ceasefire to a long-term framework that establishes a new order on the ground.
Accordingly, and from the American perspective, the significance of the meeting lies in creating a governing framework to fill the vacuum that will emerge with the weakening of Hamas, alongside partial reconstruction of civilian infrastructure and the tightly controlled opening of the Rafah crossing”.
He also noted that “all of these measures are considered tools to enhance stability in Gaza and reduce the risk of renewed escalation. Nevertheless, even if Trump presents this as a political security process, it must be recalled that relations between the United States and the Gulf states are also, to a large extent, based on extensive economic interests. Therefore, these states expect genuine reconstruction in Gaza for internal reasons and as part of deepening cooperation with Washington”.
Kabschok further affirmed that “at the same time, Trump has a personal political motive, as he views the ceasefire as a significant diplomatic achievement. Given the difficulty of solving the war between Russia and Ukraine, consolidating this achievement in Gaza takes on particular importance for him”.
However, “while Trump views Gaza as an arena that can be stabilised through a gradual plan, Netanyahu arrived constrained by conflicting political needs”. He explained that “the opposition of Netanyahu’s coalition partners, led by Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, to any step that could be interpreted as relinquishing future leverage in Gaza casts a shadow over any decision.
Nevertheless, direct pressure from Trump and the importance Netanyahu attaches to strategic relations with the United States, narrows his room for manoeuvre. In such cases, experience shows that the occupation state tends to take cautious, temporary steps, but ultimately moves in the direction required by its principal ally”.
He clarified that “to enable this movement without paying the full domestic political price, Netanyahu may need a form of compensation that can be presented as an achievement in another arena, namely Iran. It can be estimated that Netanyahu sought the continuation of the sanctions regime against Tehran, and even its tightening, or American understanding for military action if necessary. In this context, the familiar principle of give and take in international politics reemerges”.
He pointed out that “the occupation’s willingness to advance the second phase in Gaza will allow Netanyahu to present achievements on the Iranian front as well, thereby framing progress in Gaza not as a concession, but as part of balancing achievements”.
Alongside all of this, Netanyahu’s ongoing trial and Trump’s public intervention in the case, even if not at the core of the official agenda, continue to cast their shadow over the Israeli scene. These factors may affect the personal dynamics between the two sides and influence Trump’s readiness to exert pressure on Netanyahu or to show flexibility toward him.
Yoav Kabschok concluded by saying that “international pressure, regional interests, and personal relationships combined may determine the outcomes of the meeting. From this, it can be inferred that the second phase will indeed move forward, albeit gradually and with caution”.
He added that “all of this may unfold amid attempts to balance American demands with political constraints within the occupation state, while emphasising the need for caution against rushing to conclusions. Actions are the decisive factor, although in our current era, particularly with Trump, statements are often merely public relations language, signals, and political framing, rather than a reliable record of what was actually agreed”.
It can be noted that the days following the Trump-Netanyahu summit constitute the sole test of whether the latter will rein in his partners and align with the American interest in stability, or whether he will once again gamble on escalation to reshape the domestic narrative.
Sunna Files has no billionaire owner or shareholders demanding profit.
We are fiercely independent, and every dollar we receive is reinvested directly into our journalism
Click here to donate & fund your Islamic Independent Platform
