Netanyahu in Washington

By: Ricardo Israel - 09/02/2025

He landed on Monday and extended his visit until Saturday. It was the first foreign leader officially received by President Trump and also Netanyahu's first trip abroad after prosecutors requested an arrest warrant against him, and as expected, the White House executive order punishing all those who act crookedly against American allies and/or officials from the International Criminal Court was finalized beforehand.

Benjamin Netanyahu traveled with at least three issues on his mind: 1) support to continue until total victory against Hamas, 2) an agreement to eradicate the danger of an Iranian atomic bomb, and 3) progress on a treaty with Saudi Arabia, in addition to, of course, continuing to postpone what will one day be inevitable, his resignation linked to a future trial that he has been trying to avoid for years.

I imagine that the above-mentioned topics were discussed at the summit between the two, however, the whole topic was forgotten as soon as President Trump mentioned his plan for Gaza at the press conference, an issue that Trump's track record and style assures will continue to be alive. In fact, immediately afterwards, visibility was taken away from what had made noise, such as, for example, the spokesperson assuring that there would be no US troops, and that, with all certainty, the aid provided by Washington would be used to accept a smaller number of refugees, but never in the numbers that are needed, considering that none of the meetings organized for the purpose of giving refuge to the population of Gaza were successful, neither the one of the Arab League, nor that of the Muslim countries (53 attended). In both, the usual hypocrisy of "supporting" the Palestinians reigned, but no country wanted to receive them as refugees, ugly but true.

Trump’s proposal is far from everything that was once thought to be a solution to this conflict, starting with the original idea of the UN, in the sense that, as indicated by the resolution approved in 1947, two states would be created, one Jewish and one Arab, in such a way that until 1967, Gaza was part of Egypt (which, when it agreed in 1978 to return the Sinai to Israel, rejected the addition of Gaza) and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria in historical terms) was part of Jordan, which, by occupying East Jerusalem, ended until today the obligation to internationalize Jerusalem. Because of the time, there is no mention of a Palestinian State (all those who lived there were under the empires), which came later and continues to be the basis of any solution.

In any case, as soon as the press conference ended, the reactions were immediate and mostly condemnation and rejection where it mattered most, not in Europe or the UN, but in the Sunni Arab world, which has generally had an attitude of understanding with Israel and the US in this conflict. Not only among the Palestinians, but the rejection was immediate in Saudi Arabia, which officially stated what it had said before, despite the fact that there is in fact a close, though unofficial, relationship with Israel on security issues and on everything that has to do with the common adversary, Iran. What the Prince Regent said through a spokesman was that for an official change of position, progress was needed on the Palestinian State.

Why did Trump say what he said? Trump generally says whatever is on his mind at press conferences, it is spoken thought. He has done well in dealing with Middle Eastern issues in a novel way, hence the success of the Abraham Accords in his first government, which is now recognized, despite the fact that they were received with a barrage of criticism,

He is right to propose fresh ideas, to think outside the box, and to point out the long list of failures, since in the United States alone there is no president who has not had some kind of peace plan since the Six-Day War, to which must be added some from Secretaries of State, such as Henry Kissinger after the Yom Kippur War in 1973. In this regard, Einstein described repeating failed ideas and expecting different results as “madness.”

However, in this case everything works against him, starting with the fact that the proposal to move one and a half to two million people goes against one of the central ideas of his MAGA, Make America Great Again, of “Peace through strength”, in the sense of getting the US out of wars instead of starting new ones, and during his successful election campaign he proudly displayed the fact that this was accomplished during his first term. And evidently, “taking over” Gaza would immediately awaken a coalition of forces against him, led by Hamas and Iran, involving Washington so directly that it would rather chain it for a very long time. If the US failed in Iraq to such an extent that Iran’s former enemy is now more like a protectorate, and if it needed 20 years to emerge defeated from Afghanistan, what makes one think that it could succeed in Gaza, in a place where everyone has failed?

Even today, the international press deliberately ignores that the immediate origin of what is happening is Hamas’ decision to invade Israel on October 7, 2023, when there was a ceasefire from a previous conflict, to which must be added the deliberate use of the civilian population of Gaza as a human shield, a practice that constitutes a violation of the Geneva Conventions, the legal framework for wars in the world, since respect for human rights is an obligation for all of us. When I think about what motivated Trump’s proposal, only one thing comes to mind: the civilian population of Gaza, those two million whom Hamas assures destruction, not only because of the Israeli reaction, since in the type of urban battle it chose, explosives were placed in all buildings to await the military response. Moreover, this catastrophic scenario also ensures their survival, since now, as on previous occasions, the cost to the civilian population is such that world public opinion and the US itself do not allow Israel to completely defeat jihadism, as Russia, and even worse, did with the Chechens or the US with ISIS.

Given this, without hundreds of thousands of civilians always in danger, Hamas cannot carry out an attack like the one on October 7, without waiting for a ceasefire to appear until someone triumphs. So far, Netanyahu has not been able to achieve two of his three objectives, since Hamas has shown that, although it was defeated militarily, it survived as an occupying and governing force in Gaza, and these agreements to exchange hostages for Palestinian prisoners confirm this, guaranteeing its survival, since it was written in this way for the second stage, whose negotiations should begin as soon as Netanyahu returns.

In the press conference, in the uninterrupted broadcast by CSPAN, one can see how much Trump talked about Gaza and how little he talked about the Netanyahu enclave, compared to what he usually does.

However, the satisfied smile spoke for him, since everything that will surround the proposal will help him achieve another of his objectives, which is to remain in power as long as he can, since he is still waiting for a decision from the Supreme Court for a trial that has been postponed several times, which will indicate whether he is guilty or innocent of the accusations of violating the electoral law. Furthermore, what Yoav Gallant, the former Minister of Defense, said before being fired by Netanyahu in November 2024, citing a “crisis of confidence,” is relevant. He was of the opinion that Israel should declare that the military objectives had already been met in Gaza.

However, for Netanyahu to take such a step means that Israel must present a proposal that it has lacked, in the sense that it follows the pattern of good military performance but political and image failure. Personally, I believe that this should give way not only to reconstruction, but ideally to a strong presence of the Sunni Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, since the Palestinian Authority is powerless to confront Hamas, which already expelled it from the government of Gaza in 2007, through a coup d'état, and has now penetrated the West Bank.

Moving from the military to a new government for Gaza should be accompanied by something that has been postponed, which is the formation of a high-level commission to investigate what happened on October 7, which, like the Yom Kippur war, should be chaired by a minister of the Supreme Court, although on this occasion not only the political leaders should be questioned, but also all those who acted so badly that day, including the Armed Forces (the Army Chief of Staff has already resigned) and the security and intelligence forces. Logically, all of the above would be done with Netanyahu having resigned, so that in parallel a resolution should be expected in the postponed impeachment of Netanyahu.

In a democracy like Israel, once the report of the aforementioned Commission is known, what should be expected is the calling of elections, which, according to polls, Netanyahu could win today.

But nothing or very little can operate normally if Hamas and, above all, if Iran, the puppet master behind everything that happens in the Middle East, continue to maintain their strength. To begin with, Iran created the resistance front that opened against Israel and that consulted not only Hamas, but also the Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Shiite militias in Syria and Iraq, and the two armed confrontations between Israel and Iran, various war fronts that make this Israeli performance the second most successful and difficult, after the war of independence. To begin with, there is enough evidence today, including statements by Hamas political leaders such as the executed Ismail Haniya, that the support for the invasion of Israel came from Tehran's decision to prevent what then seemed imminent from taking place, a ceremony in the White House where peace was signed between Saudi Arabia and Israel, an idea still in force, but postponed.

That is why, as a matter of priorities, what was proposed for Gaza seemed so surprising, since none of that idea seems possible today, as long as Iran continues with its atomic bomb project and Hamas is still alive, although it is not a force capable of unleashing an invasion of Israel, it is capable of governing Gaza and maintaining itself as a terrorist alternative, that is, it would make it impossible for any US project to be carried out in peace.

For this reason, I find it very difficult to believe that prior to that press conference, at the formal summit between Netanyahu and Trump, those issues were not touched upon for 40 minutes, and that the leaks indicate that what was actually discussed was what interested Netanyahu, that is, Iran, and, of course, Hamas as well.

For his part, Trump also surprised with very contained opinions on Iran, which distance him from an immediate military exit, in the sense that rather than destroying the atomic program, he said that he wanted Iran to end it voluntarily, to concentrate only on the peaceful use of nuclear energy, something difficult to fully accept by a regime that frantically seeks the nuclear bomb, to the extent that it would be the way out of its current very bad situation, both economically and militarily. In other words, Iran has suffered a strategic setback, a weakness such that the ayatollahs themselves are opening up to the possibility of international reviews, which in the past the strongest were rejected, accepting only some superficial ones, but not the strict ones that a military enrichment program would entail.

It was overshadowed by the press conference, but it is difficult to believe that it was not discussed, since neither the Palestinian Authority, nor any Arab country, is going to put money or soldiers into the reconstruction of Gaza, with the possible exception of Qatar.

The truth is that before his electoral victory, candidate Trump spoke of how convenient Gaza's geographical location was, with a beach on the Mediterranean Sea. I remember hearing him in a couple of television interviews mention these advantages, but I assumed he was doing so as a developer of large real estate projects, and it never occurred to me to think of something similar to this proposal, which has not died, but is surely being revised to be less rejected, adding to it the use of the substantial economic contribution of the United States to several countries in the region, so it should not be surprising that invitations to refugees from Gaza appear, but never in the necessary numbers.

The bad thing is that at least rhetorically it does not seem to be in tune with what should be of the greatest importance today, which is to move forward with a proposal that seems acceptable to the Sunni Arab countries, thinking about Iran, a country that today presents the greatest weakness known to it since those already distant days, when in the 80s it was invaded by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, including now Al Assad's Syria, where its defeat was the greatest.

Today, above all, Israel's successful military performance has put it in a position of great weakness, preventing a counteroffensive. Iran was defeated in the two confrontations it had with Israel, since its attack with hundreds of missiles did not cause any damage, and, on the contrary, the Israeli responses left it without any air defense, with planes that went and returned without being intercepted, and even the defense they had with advanced Russian devices in the places where they are supposed to be developing the atomic bomb was rendered useless. Even more, since then, Trump approved the sending of weapons denied by Biden, such as planes and bombs necessary to attack sites that must perhaps be deep in the mountains.

In my view, this would be the first opportunity in many years for three forces to come together to present the Ayatollahs with an ultimatum to verifiably end the weapons program and for Tehran to concentrate only on peaceful uses. It should be a joint presentation by those against whom these weapons would be directed today: that is, the United States as the still hegemonic power, Israel, and the Sunni Arab countries, which feel just as threatened as Israel, and which have no way of defending themselves from this bomb.

Furthermore, there is a recent precedent in which the US played a leading role. Thus, in the 1990s, with the disappearance of the USSR, the US sought to prevent nuclear proliferation and to end the possession or projects of various countries. And it was successful, very successful with countries that, for different reasons, accepted what Washington proposed.

This is how South Africa agreed to end a programme started by the apartheid governments, with the US paying the costs. Argentina and other countries with smaller programmes also came under pressure. The greatest success was with Ukraine and Belarus, since the disappearance of the former USSR left Russia with almost all the weapons as the successor power, but also smaller quantities in Ukrainian and Belarusian territory. In fact, kyiv remembers this fact, rightly arguing that there would have been no Russian invasion if it had had these weapons.

The Israelis say something similar: the US invasion of Iraq in the 1990s would not have been possible if they had not destroyed Saddam's nuclear programme in 1981, despite the condemnation of various nations, especially European ones. In Belarus, after a constitutional reform, courtesy of Putin, they have recently been redeployed on its territory.

Returning to the opportunity that is now presented, this ultimatum by these three forces could positively clear the panorama of the Middle East, and at last, without the aggressive Iran that has been known since 1979, perhaps at last, a chance could be given to peace in the region, which would allow the creation of two states, one next to the other, and not one instead of the other, as Iran and Hamas have wanted, and perhaps, ideally, on this occasion there will be no rejection from either the Palestinian Authority or the Arab League, as has unfortunately happened since 1947 and on several subsequent occasions, including Camp David, as Clinton has recalled. And perhaps, this time too, the opportunity could knock on the door of the Iranians.

But as things stand, with Iran seeking its atomic bomb, and with Hamas still in Gaza, the peace that John Lennon called for has no chance, and as a substitute, reflecting the mutual suffering of both peoples, these exchanges of hostages for prisoners arise, despite the deplorable state in which they were found on Saturday and the sad news they received when they learned that their relatives had been murdered by the terrorists.

Master and PhD in Political Science (University of Essex), Bachelor of Laws (University of Barcelona), Lawyer (University of Chile), former presidential candidate (Chile, 2013) //

@israelzipper

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».