Trump and Netanyahu: A high-stakes encounter

On February 4, the White House became the stage for a diplomatic performance so rehearsed, it almost felt like a Netflix drama. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, two men with a knack for grand entrances and even grander exits, came together to rewrite the script of Middle Eastern geopolitics—again. With Netanyahu having to endure, reluctantly, the ceasefire in Gaza and Trump seeking to reboot US foreign policy, the meeting was not merely a diplomatic formality but an executive session laying the groundwork for a new regional security framework, the trajectory of the Gaza conflict, and broader strategic alliances.

The discussions focused on the ongoing ceasefire in Gaza, the long-term strategic posture of Israel against Hamas and Iran, Trump’s broader vision for a regional realignment, including Saudi-Israeli normalization, and finally, a stunning proposal: Trump floated the idea of the United States taking control of Gaza—a statement that caught many off guard and instantly became the focal point of the meeting.

Trump’s proposal comes on a credible trail, however. His first term reshaped the US-Israel relationship in ways no previous administration had. Beyond the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the relocation of the US embassy, his administration formally acknowledged Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, a move that cemented Israel’s strategic advantage on its northern frontier. His administration also brokered the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco, fundamentally altering the diplomatic landscape of the region. Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, re-imposing heavy sanctions that crippled Tehran’s economy and restricted its ability to fund proxy groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. He also oversaw a dramatic shift in military coordination between Israel and Arab states, creating the foundation for a regional coalition against Iran. Yet, despite these pro-Israel policies, Trump has demonstrated a willingness to pressure Israel when it aligns with his broader foreign policy goals—something that Netanyahu is acutely aware of.

The hostage deal, dictated by Trump, includes a major exchange of hostages for convicted Palestinian terrorists, adjustments to Israeli troop positions in Gaza, and humanitarian provisions. The deal is structured in three phases, each contingent on Israeli concessions. The first phase calls for the release of 33 Israeli hostages, including 12 women and children, men aged 50 and above, and injured civilians. The second phase, the most contentious, aims at the release of all remaining hostages, a permanent ceasefire, and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza. The second phase effectively determines whether Hamas regroups or is permanently dismantled. The third phase involves an ambiguous long-term political arrangement, with international actors stepping in to oversee Gaza’s post-war governance. Trump’s proposal to place Gaza under US control could be interpreted as an alternative to the third phase.

Netanyahu’s position is clear: he has no interest in implementing the second phase. A prolonged ceasefire at this stage would allow Hamas to rearm and reestablish control over Gaza, jeopardizing the entire military campaign. Israel’s security establishment knows that halting the war now, with Hamas still capable of political hegemony in the Strip, would be a strategic disaster. But Trump proposed an unconventional approach to Gaza that could shuffle the deck of Middle Eastern geopolitics. His idea, still lacking in detail, involves resettling Gaza’s population in Egypt and Jordan, while transforming the Strip into a demilitarized zone under American oversight.

Again, albeit radical, Trump is far from outlandish. Trump sees this arrangement as an extension of his Abraham Accords strategy. His belief is that the Palestinian issue is not a result of Israeli policy but of decades of Arab governance failures. By removing Hamas and eliminating Gaza as a launchpad for Iranian-backed terrorism, he argues, the region could stabilize under a new paradigm: economic prosperity in exchange for peace.

Trump’s broader regional vision involves offering Saudi Arabia a leadership role in forming a regional front against Iran in exchange for normalization with Israel, maintaining military aid to Jordan to ensure it remains a bulwark against both Iranian influence and a potential influx of Palestinian refugees, and strengthening security and economic cooperation with Egypt, which already plays a crucial role in mediating between Israel and Hamas. Egypt, while reluctant to absorb Gazan refugees, has a vested interest in preventing a resurgence of Hamas, given its own struggles with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Strategically, Israel cannot afford to let Hamas survive in any form. No military campaign in history has ever been resolved by leaving an active remnant of a defeated enemy in place. Writing for L’Informale, Niram Ferretti noted that “the Allies did not preserve a functioning Third Reich in Germany after World War II, nor did the coalition forces in Mosul allowed ISIS to linger after nine months of urban warfare.” Israel’s leadership views Hamas in the same vein: as a terrorist entity that must be eradicated entirely. The destruction of Hamas is not merely an Israeli imperative—it is the foundation for any sustainable future in the region.

Ultimately, the meeting between Trump and Netanyahu demonstrated that in the Middle East, even the most unconventional proposals can shift the conversation. While Trump’s suggestions will need to be digested by regional stakeholders, the US president seems confident that he holds valuable bargaining chips for Riyadh, Amman, and Cairo. The impact of this meeting is likely to extend beyond the headlines. Whether it sparks genuine progress or simply adds another layer of complexity is yet to be seen, but one thing is clear: with Trump in the White House, the status quo is never safe for long.