What transpired in the recent meeting between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu is not merely a protocol station in a well-established political relationship, but a concentrated expression of a strategic dilemma facing the Israeli-American project in the post-genocide war on Gaza phase. A dilemma that concerns not only the future of the war, but the future of the region, and the limits of the ability to continue managing the conflict with the same old mechanisms.
Contrary to the prevailing impression, the core of the divergence between Trump and Netanyahu does not lie in an ideological disagreement or political rupture, but in an increasing difference over the timing of the transition from war to what comes after it, and the conditions and limits of this transition. Trump, returning to the White House with the mindset of a deal-maker, has come to view the war in Gaza as a political and strategic burden that threatens his ability to reorder his international and regional priorities. As for Netanyahu, he sees it as a last chance to reproduce his political survival, even if the price is prolonging the destruction and deepening isolation.
Trump, who appears serious about transitioning to what he calls the “second phase” of his long-term plan, is not motivated by moral reasons or commitment to the national rights of the Palestinian people, but by purely pragmatic calculations; ending an open-ended war, consolidating facts on the ground, and opening a path for conditional reconstruction that reintegrates the region into the American stability equation. This phase, as outlined in Washington, does not mean a sovereign Palestinian state, but a politically defanged entity, security-controlled, and regionally acceptable.
However, this vision collides directly with the obstacle that is Netanyahu. The man is neither capable nor qualified, politically and personally, to accept any formula that could be understood as ending the war or a clear Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Not only because he rejects it in principle, but because any step of this kind means the disintegration of his coalition, the fall of his government, and perhaps his final exit from the political scene. Hence, Netanyahu continues his policy of buying time by prolonging the war, emptying initiatives of their content, and betting on the erosion of international pressures.
Between managing the cost and the post-war entitlement: Where do the Palestinians stand?
In this context, talking about “differences” between the two men is as accurate as it is misleading. Yes, there is real tension, but it is tension within the same project, not outside it. Trump wants to move to the post-war phase, while Netanyahu wants to stay in it as long as possible. Both do not adopt a project that leads to Palestinian liberation and enables them to determine their destiny, but they differ on managing the cost.
Amid this American-Israeli divergence, the most pressing question emerges: Where do the Palestinians stand and what are they doing?
And the painful answer is that the Palestinian position remains captive to a state of waiting and betting on the “contradictions of others,” instead of actually investing in them. For the absence of Palestinian initiative does not fill the vacuum, but rather fills it with others according to their interests, and often at the expense of the national cause and the cohesion of Palestinian society, which is paying, and continues to pay, the price of Israeli aggression and the absence of an effective Palestinian political role.
Post-meeting: Who fills the political vacuum?
The formation of a national consensus Palestinian government, with a clear political program and inclusive reference, is no longer a political luxury or merely a moral response, but has become a strategic tool capable of disrupting American and Israeli calculations alike. A government of this type does not overthrow the occupation, but it moves the Palestinians from the position of a waiting recipient drowning in illusion to the position of an actor, and imposes itself as an indispensable party in any “day after” path, and embarrasses Washington in front of its discourse on stability and reconstruction.
Moreover, a serious Palestinian initiative can deepen the existing gap between Trump and Netanyahu. For Trump, seeking an exit from the war, needs a Palestinian partner capable of disrupting Netanyahu's plans, which the latter particularly fears what such a Palestinian system can succeed in preventing the isolation of the Gaza Strip and its separation from the West Bank and what that means in reviving the path of seizing the right to self-determination and embodying the Palestinian state on the occupied land since 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital.
As for the Arab side, the possibilities of influence have always existed, but the will remains hesitant. Arab countries possess real pressure cards in the face of the Israeli game, but they still deal with Washington with a reactive logic, not initiative. Without a unified Palestinian position, these cards remain scattered, usable partially, not for decisive influence.
The current moment, with all its complexities, holds a rare political opportunity, but it is not automatic. The gap between Trump and Netanyahu is not an illusion, but it will not turn into a Palestinian gain unless the Palestinians make good use of it. The transition from a policy of waiting to a policy of initiative is no longer a tactical choice, but an urgent national necessity, not only in defense of the cause, but of Palestinian society itself, which is paying the price of occupation, division, and the absence of decision-making at the same time.
In conclusion, it is no longer acceptable for Palestinians to remain captives of the spectator position on others' conflict, or hostages to calculations not managed by their hands. The Palestinian street, and its living social forces from youth and social movements, popular activities, civil society, and national figures with firm positions and everyone who seeks change, are called upon today to break the cycle of waiting and exert serious pressure towards rebuilding national political action. For the absence of Palestinian initiative does not neutralize our people from the conflict, but leaves it naked in the face of unleashed Israeli aggression, and projects crafted over its heads. Restoring the role does not begin with slogans, but with imposing the priority of unity, accountability, and genuine representation, as conditions for protecting society before the cause, and transforming the sacrifices of Gaza and all Palestine from an open human cost into an effective political force. At this very moment, silence becomes complicity, and waiting a confirmed loss, while initiative alone is the only way to seize a place for Palestinians at a table being reshaped anew.
In a world being reshaped by force, there is no place for those who wait for others' justice, but for those who impose themselves as an indispensable party.
شارك برأيك
Post-Trump-Netanyahu Meeting: A Moment of Testing or Recycling the Crisis?