Ceasefire Strains Expose Deep Divide Between Trump and Netanyahu- As the fragile ceasefire in Gaza continues, it is increasingly clear that it has not produced political calm between Washington and Jerusalem. Instead, it has highlighted a widening strategic gap between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over what comes next—and how lasting stability in Gaza can realistically be achieved.
Behind the scenes, frustration has been mounting within Trump’s inner circle. Senior aides believe Netanyahu is intentionally slowing progress toward the second phase of the US-backed Gaza framework, wary that moving too quickly could lock Israel into an arrangement that leaves Hamas politically intact and militarily capable. From Washington’s perspective, delays risk unraveling a rare diplomatic opening and undermining Trump’s broader regional ambitions.
Trump’s approach prioritizes momentum. He is eager to transition Gaza into a “day after” phase built around a technocratic governing authority, supported by an international peacekeeping presence and overseen by a proposed multinational body known as the Board of Peace. For Trump, the precise mechanics of Hamas disarmament—long a sticking point in past negotiations—cannot be allowed to stall progress indefinitely. Without a credible postwar political framework, US officials argue, Gaza will remain a perpetual flashpoint and key Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, will refuse to deepen ties with Israel.
Netanyahu views the situation very differently. From his standpoint, any ceasefire with Hamas is inherently temporary unless it is backed by an unmistakable threat of overwhelming force. He remains deeply skeptical that Hamas, or allied groups such as Hezbollah, would ever voluntarily relinquish their weapons or abandon their military infrastructure. In Netanyahu’s calculus, easing pressure too soon risks restoring Hamas’s control and emboldening Israel’s adversaries across the region.
This divergence extends beyond Gaza. Recent disagreements over Syria have underscored broader tensions in the relationship. Netanyahu reportedly urged Trump to retain certain US sanctions on Damascus, hoping they could serve as leverage in future negotiations or as a constraint on Iranian influence. Trump, focused on reshaping US policy in the region and reducing entanglements, rejected the request and moved ahead with plans to lift the measures.
The contrast between the two leaders reflects more than personal friction—it reveals competing theories of power. Trump believes regional alignment, economic incentives, and diplomatic architecture can gradually marginalize extremist actors. Netanyahu, shaped by decades of conflict, insists that deterrence and military dominance are prerequisites for any durable political arrangement.
For now, the ceasefire holds, but its durability may depend less on developments in Gaza than on whether Washington and Jerusalem can reconcile these fundamentally different visions. If they cannot, the pause in fighting may prove to be just that—a pause—rather than the foundation for the new Middle East Trump hopes to build.
