Jerusalem enters talks resolved to keep IDF freedom of action, dismantle Hamas, secure hostages first, and block any forced As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrives in Washington to meet President Donald Trump, Israel faces a historic test—balancing urgent demands to end the Gaza war with ironclad red lines on Hamas, hostages, military freedom, and sovereignty.
A Meeting Loaded with Expectations
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu travels to Washington carrying the weight of a nation still at war and a government under strain. The United States has tabled a sweeping 21-point plan to end the Gaza conflict, free the hostages, reconstruct the enclave, and pave a pathway toward eventual Palestinian statehood. President Donald Trump has said he wants to finalize the deal during Netanyahu’s visit, declaring, “Everybody’s involved, everybody wants it.”
The meeting takes place under immense international pressure. Arab governments are demanding closure, European countries are imposing sanctions, and Washington is pressing Jerusalem to move from warfighting to diplomacy. Netanyahu’s challenge is to show openness to negotiation while protecting Israel’s vital security imperatives. “We’re working with President Trump’s team… I hope we can make it a go, because we want to free our hostages, we want to get rid of Hamas rule, and have them disarmed, Gaza demilitarized. It is not finalized yet,” the prime minister said on the eve of his departure.
The American Blueprint
The U.S. plan is ambitious. It calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities if Israel agrees, with hostages returned within 48 hours in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. A technocratic transitional authority would govern Gaza, supervised by international oversight, while Arab-led stabilization forces deploy on the ground. Humanitarian aid would surge to pre-war levels—up to 600 trucks daily. The plan also opens the door to Palestinian statehood, contingent on reforms and verified security guarantees.
Trump has positioned the plan as both bold and urgent, hoping to seize a diplomatic breakthrough. But for Israel, every clause of the plan triggers hard questions. Can Hamas really be disarmed? Can hostages be returned without Israel surrendering leverage? Will international oversight strengthen security—or shackle it? And does talk of a “political horizon” risk locking Israel into concessions before Palestinians demonstrate genuine change?
Israel’s Red Lines: Ministers Speak Out
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has been blunt in listing non-negotiables: “The full and genuine dismantling and demilitarization of Hamas and the Gaza Strip; complete freedom of action for the IDF throughout the coastal territory, including the Philadelphi Corridor; no role at all for the Palestinian Authority, not even through intermediaries; no role at all for Qatar, which are two-faced hypocrites that sponsor terror; and not even a hint of a Palestinian state in the agreement.”
He added a humanitarian dimension that is rarely voiced in international circles: “Gaza will no longer be a prison where people are held by force in order to harm the State of Israel.” In other words, Gazans who wish to emigrate should be allowed to do so, a stance aimed at undermining the cycle of radicalization.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir spoke in even sharper terms: “Netanyahu has no mandate to accept a partial deal. The blood of our soldiers is not forfeit. We must go all the way, destroy Hamas.” His words reflect the mood of Israel’s right flank, which fears that compromises will squander the sacrifices of the war.
Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has framed Israel’s objectives in paired terms: “The return of our hostages and the dismantling of Hamas.” For Gallant, there can be no resolution that fails to secure both. Hostages first, dismantlement sustained—that sequencing is at the core of Israel’s bargaining position.
Hostages First: The Emotional Center
The hostage issue remains Israel’s deepest wound. Families of the captives hold vigils outside the prime minister’s residence and the Defense Ministry, demanding their loved ones be returned before politics takes precedence. The American plan promises their release within 48 hours of an Israeli “yes,” but skepticism runs deep. Israel’s position is unequivocal: no withdrawals, no large-scale prisoner releases, and no strategic concessions until the hostages are home. Anything less would be seen domestically as betrayal.
Hamas Must Be Dismantled
Israel insists that Hamas cannot emerge from this war intact, politically or militarily. Netanyahu reiterated that Israel seeks “to get rid of Hamas rule, and have them disarmed, Gaza demilitarized.” Smotrich’s formula of “full and genuine dismantling and demilitarization” underscores that partial measures will not suffice. Israelis recall earlier ceasefires that left Hamas free to rebuild tunnels, rockets, and command structures. This time, dismantlement must be verifiable, irreversible, and enforced.
Military Freedom of Action
Another red line is Israel’s freedom to act militarily. Past deployments of international peacekeepers in Lebanon and Sinai have shown their inability to prevent terrorism while simultaneously constraining Israeli operations. For Israel, this is intolerable. Any deal must include explicit “snap-back” rights, allowing the IDF to strike unilaterally if terror regenerates. Smotrich’s condition of “complete freedom of action for the IDF” reflects this consensus across the security establishment.
No Carte Blanche for the Palestinian Authority
The American plan envisions a reformed Palestinian Authority role in Gaza. Israel, however, rejects inserting the PA without deep changes. The PA is plagued by corruption, incitement, and weak law enforcement in parts of Judea and Samaria. Smotrich’s red line—“no role at all for the Palestinian Authority”—is echoed by many Israelis who fear that Gaza under PA rule would simply become another launching pad for terror. For any PA role to be considered, Israel demands demonstrable reform, external oversight, and the ability to revoke the arrangement if it fails.
Blocking Qatari Influence
Qatar’s mediation and funding have long been seen in Israel as fueling Hamas under the guise of stabilization. Smotrich condemned the idea outright: “no role at all for Qatar, which are two-faced hypocrites that sponsor terror.” Israel views continued Qatari involvement as legitimizing the very cycle that led to the current war.
No Imposed Palestinian Statehood
The most politically sensitive clause of the U.S. plan is its “pathway” to Palestinian statehood. Netanyahu has already called international pushes for unilateral recognition “sheer madness.” Smotrich warned: “not even a hint of a Palestinian state in the agreement.” For Israel, any forced timeline or prewritten script for statehood ignores the fundamental security risks. The principle is simple: statehood must follow transformation, not precede it.
Washington’s Red Lines
The U.S. is not only pushing Israel; it is setting its own boundaries. Trump declared: “I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. It’s not going to happen.” The message is clear: normalization with Arab states and global buy-in require that annexation be shelved. Washington is also insisting that humanitarian aid flow at scale once the guns fall silent, without Israeli bottlenecks.
This divergence—Israel rejecting any hint of imposed statehood, the U.S. rejecting annexation—is at the core of the diplomatic tension. Netanyahu must navigate between Trump’s desire for a breakthrough and his coalition’s refusal to accept concessions seen as existential.
Domestic Crosswinds
Inside Israel, Netanyahu is pulled in opposite directions. His right-wing allies threaten to topple the coalition if he accepts PA involvement or statehood language. Yet polls suggest growing numbers of Israelis, including some of his own voters, want a deal if it secures hostages and ends the war. The balancing act is delicate: too much flexibility risks political collapse, too much resistance risks international isolation.
Conclusion: Holding the Line
The Washington summit is a crucible. For Trump, it is an opportunity to showcase American diplomacy and regional leadership. For Netanyahu, it is a battle to safeguard Israel’s existential red lines. The prime minister has laid out his bottom line: “We want to free our hostages, we want to get rid of Hamas rule, and have them disarmed, Gaza demilitarized.”
If Washington respects those imperatives—hostages first, Hamas dismantled, IDF freedom preserved, no imposed statehood, no Qatari or PA shortcuts—then the Trump–Netanyahu meeting may yield an agreement that ends the Gaza war without compromising Israel’s security. If not, Israel may once again stand alone, holding the line for its survival.
0 Comments