Analysis: Netanyahu believes that angering Trump is his least bad option

Analysis written by Andrew Carey from the Ofoq News Network - On thorny issues, Netanyahu prefers to postpone decision on them. If he is forced to take a position, he likes to give it a touch of ambiguity and some flexibility, in anticipation of any serious developments that may occur at a later time.

But the matter is different this time, with regard to the road map drawn up by US President Donald Trump to move forward with the ceasefire agreement in Gaza. Netanyahu said in his opening speech during the weekly Israeli government meeting on Sunday: “I would like to be precise: Israel does not accept the 15-item document.”

He added: “I heard people saying: ‘You did not say that.’ And here I repeat it again: Israel does not accept the 15-item document.”

This move could be risky because it could anger Trump. The American president - who is more in need than ever to achieve victory, while it seems that his adventure towards Iran will lead him to a crushing defeat - re-engaged in the Gaza file 10 days ago, announcing that the peace council he founded had reached a “historic agreement” with Hamas to completely disarm.

The Council's Special Envoy, Nickolay Mladenov, carefully explained on the "X" platform that the disarmament process must take place "completely simultaneously" with the withdrawal of Israeli forces, proposing a gradual process whereby Israeli army forces withdraw in stages from their positions inside Gaza, coinciding with Hamas handing over its weapons. Any remaining hope that Netanyahu could be persuaded to participate in such an endeavor now seems like a pipe dream.

The Israeli leader said on Sunday: “The Israeli army will not carry out any withdrawal unless Hamas is disarmed. When I talk about disarming Hamas, I mean heavy and light weapons, and all types of weapons.”

“We are talking about real disarmament, not fake disarmament.” As of Sunday afternoon, Trump was still silent, except for a post on the Truth Social platform in which he quoted former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in which he said she supported his plan for Gaza.

Meanwhile, Mladenov appeared on Israeli Channel 12 on Sunday evening, hinting that the plan may remain based on some phased process, but he also hinted that Hamas should take the first step. Mladenov said: “No one is required to do anything - let alone Israel - before we see confirmed steps on the ground.

If there is a documented process of disarmament - that is, taking it out of the hands of the factions, storing it and eventually rendering it unusable - then Israel will withdraw from Gaza.” Addressing voters Of course, there are skeptics everywhere when it comes to this, especially regarding the two main parties, as both Israel and Hamas share an interest in ensuring that the other side is held responsible for any failure that may occur.

Therefore, Hamas' response to Netanyahu's statements was largely balanced and calm, and the movement said that it is still committed to the "road map," adding that it expects the "Peace Council" to put pressure on Netanyahu to adhere to it. In fact, there are many who doubt that Hamas intends one day to give up all of its weapons, which is considered the clearest evidence of its leadership position in the Palestinian resistance, and it also constitutes a guarantee of its survival in the face of any internal disturbance in Gaza.

The movement gained many enemies during the nearly 20 years it spent ruling the Gaza Strip. But, regardless of any lack of confidence in Hamas’ true intentions, or in Mladenov’s belief in the verifiable possibility of disarmament, or even in Netanyahu’s own willingness to order the withdrawal of any forces, the question remains: Why did he publicly provoke Trump?

Is it not assumed that Netanyahu, the brilliant strategist as many describe him, could have done this more skillfully? The reason - perhaps not surprising - is the Israeli general elections.

There are less than 12 weeks left, and opinion polls indicate that he (Netanyahu) is still facing difficulties. It is time - without a doubt - to address the voters.

All prime ministers in Israel must form a ruling coalition that includes several parties. As others have pointed out, Netanyahu prefers to form his next government coalition before the elections rather than after them.

After the vote count is over, Netanyahu will need his far-right allies to join him if he has any chance of remaining in power, and so he has been greatly disturbed by their public criticism of the road map, as well as demands to reverse an earlier Israeli cabinet decision to approve the deployment of the international stabilization force in Gaza, which was supposed to oversee security in the framework of a limited-scale pilot project inside the Strip. Army Radio reported on Sunday that Netanyahu had quietly agreed to begin reconstruction work in the pilot zone, a move that appeared to be an expression of further weakness.

However, it would be a mistake to see this as merely appeasing the far right. The majority of Israeli voters, despite their support for Trump, believe that the American president is completely wrong if he believes in the necessity of restricting Israel’s freedom to act in Gaza as it wishes.

For example, it is unlikely that any of Netanyahu's main rivals will embrace Mladenov's attempt, during his television interview on Sunday, to appeal to Israel's self-interest, when he said that full implementation of the peace council plan is the only way to ensure that there will not be another mass attack like the one that occurred in 2023 on Israeli communities located near Gaza. The prominent envoy said: “If we end up with arguments over this or that issue, and delaying tactics, I can assure you that the only alternative then will be another operation to rearm Hamas, and increase the risk of a repeat of the events of October 7.”

In fact, it would be surprising if Gadi Eisenkot or Naftali Bennett - or many others aspiring to become Israeli prime minister - would think that this election platform might bring them many votes. Meanwhile, an official in the US-established peace council sought to strengthen Israeli military restraint in recent days in Gaza, as well as change its targeting policy.

“We are witnessing cooperation taking place behind the scenes,” the official said. This represents limited consolation to the two million residents of Gaza, who remain excluded from the dialogue and are almost unable to determine their fate.