Netanyahu’s strategy could soon test Trump’s patience

Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is pursuing an irresponsible policy that could lead to a deterioration of its strategic position in all arenas. In Judea and Samaria, the military campaign is starting to look a lot like a Gaza strategy: The Air Force is bombing small squads or individual terrorists, D9 bulldozers are demolishing infrastructure willy nilly, and the population is being expelled from the camps without any preparation for housing or shelter in the harsh weather of these days. Recently, the political echelon decided to send tanks into the West Bank for the first time in two decades, contrary to the Army’s position.

Residents of the Palestinian territories are not allowed to work in Israel, while the problem of the thousands of illegal residents, who constitute the real threat of potential terrorists carrying out attacks, is not being addressed. Meanwhile, settlements are being expanded, and new points for creeping annexation are being established.

Dozens of IDF battalions are deployed in Judea and Samaria to deal with the situation, but the long border with Jordan has been neglected for years, allowing for massive arms smuggling that Iran is financing. At the end of the Protective Edge operation in 2014, Ayatollah Khamenei ordered his forces to strengthen and arm the Palestinian groups operating in Judea and Samaria, but Israel neglected to allocate forces to block the Jordanian border.

This unaddressed threat is exacerbated by the government’s years-long policy of weakening the Palestinian Authority and its security agencies, which fought Hamas and Palestinian Jihad, and, instead, keeping Hamas happy in Gaza. As a result, terrorist activity in the West Bank and in Israel is increasing, despite the best efforts of the Army, Shin Bet, and police. At some point, we are going to run out of the kind of miracles that allowed the safe neutralization of booby-trapped buses in Holon and Bat Yam.

Under these conditions, the dream of normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia, and later with most Muslim countries, is becoming ever more elusive. And the question arises whether Netanyahu is consciously giving up the jewel in the strategic crown – the possibility of regional stability and prosperity under the leadership of his friend, President Trump.

Egypt’s extensive arming and its perplexing moves during the war in Gaza are indeed worrying. But the interview with Israel’s new ambassador in Washington about the Egyptian threat, and the leaks about it in the Israeli media, are certainly the work of Israel’s prime minister.

After Protective Edge in 2014, Egypt brokered the ceasefire with Hamas and offered a solution similar to what the Gulf states and the international community are now offering for post-war Gaza, a reformed Palestinian Authority’s return to control the crossings to Gaza and, subsequently, full control over the Gaza police and security in the Strip.

Netanyahu dismissed the Egyptian proposal, which, of course, Hamas also rejected. The Prime Minister’s solution was to introduce Qatar as the main source of funding for the terrorist organization. This allowed Hamas to control Gaza and weaken the Palestinian Authority. This is the “strategic concept” that brought about the catastrophe of October 7, 2023.

This, I believe, is what caused the first rift with the administration of Egyptian President al-Sisi, who overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood and imprisoned Hamas militants. At that time, and until recently, Qatar, a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, was Egypt’s main enemy in the Arab arena.

Thus, instead of focusing resources on challenging Turkey’s military entrenchment in Syria on the border of the Golan Heights, Israel’s policy has handed Turkey’s President Erdogan an opportunity to resolve the political crisis with President al-Sisi and put Israel in a very dangerous strategic position. Notably, al-Sisi, once so cautious about Syria’s new leader Ahmed al-Shara’a, has now invited him to Cairo.

All this, when the work in Gaza is not over; when the IDF’s hold on southern Lebanon is very limited and there is a danger of renewed fighting against Hezbollah; when the Houthis threaten to go back to attacking Israel at any moment; and Iran is eager to improve its position after its failures in Syria and Lebanon.

Moreover, to the chagrin of Netanyahu and his extremist coalition, President Trump has decided that he prefers negotiations with Iran on the nuclear project and has announced he will not support an Israeli military move against Iranian nuclear facilities.

The only hope now is that Trump will get tired of Netanyahu, who is jeopardizing part of his regional strategy. This may start with Trump’s decision to support the release of all Israeli hostages as part of the second phase of the deal and the end of the war.

Paradoxically, the crisis between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky, which has caused the freezing of the negotiations to bring about a ceasefire agreement in the Ukraine-Russia war, could return the US president’s attention to the crisis in Gaza, where he has much stronger leverage over Netanyahu and the Arab mediators.

Today, the Arab League countries are poised to present their proposal for a solution to the war in Gaza, one that will not include the expulsion of the Palestinian population. President Trump could thus achieve an important diplomatic breakthrough in the Middle East if he manages to bring about an end to the hostage saga and his promised peace. This could advance a solution for the control of Gaza without Hamas, an Arab-Israeli agreement that will clear the way for the possibility of normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel and the expansion of the Abraham Accords to other Arab and Muslim countries.

In my view, the leaked new plan of President Trump’s representative Steve Witkoff for a two-stage hostage release deal and President Trump’s invitation bringing kidnap survivor Eli Sharabi to Washington indicate that this is the president’s new direction. I assume that the hostage delegation led by Sharabi will raise the issue on a political and public level in the US and perhaps internationally.