EDITORIAL: Benjamin Netanyahu’s rejection of the latest US-backed Gaza peace proposal has exposed an increasingly uncomfortable reality for President Donald Trump: Washington may provide Israel with extraordinary diplomatic and military support, but the Israeli prime minister continues to behave as though American policy must ultimately bend to his political requirements.
The latest dispute is particularly revealing because Hamas had accepted the broad framework for phased disarmament alongside Israeli withdrawal, only for Netanyahu to insist that Hamas surrender its weapons completely before Israeli forces begin pulling back. A plan Trump only recently described as a major breakthrough has therefore run directly into Israeli resistance.
The disagreement over sequencing is fundamental. The 15-point proposal envisages Hamas relinquishing its weapons through a verified process while Israeli forces withdraw in stages. Netanyahu has effectively reversed that bargain by demanding complete disarmament first, while Israel continues to control most of Gaza.
Such a condition strips the Palestinian side of its principal leverage before Israel fulfils the corresponding part of the arrangement. Unsurprisingly, it also makes implementation far more difficult and gives those opposed to ending the conflict another opportunity to run down the clock.
That appears particularly convenient as Israel approaches its October election. Netanyahu faces strong pressure from far-right political forces that oppose significant concessions and have repeatedly argued against withdrawal from Gaza. His own political survival is therefore increasingly intertwined with maintaining their support.
Compounding matters is his continuing corruption trial. Losing political power would not automatically send him to prison, but a conviction could ultimately carry that consequence, making the stakes surrounding his political future unusually personal as well as political. But why should any of this determine the fate of Gaza?
An entire population cannot remain trapped between bombardment, displacement and destroyed infrastructure because the Israeli prime minister finds compromise electorally inconvenient.
Close to three years of conflict have devastated Gaza’s healthcare and education systems, obstructed reconstruction and left civilians dependent upon restricted humanitarian assistance. A peace framework cannot remain hostage to coalition arithmetic in Jerusalem indefinitely.
The more troubling question concerns Washington. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he is willing to exert enormous pressure on allies and adversaries alike when he believes American interests require it. Yet Netanyahu has enjoyed an extraordinary degree of latitude even when Israeli actions have complicated US diplomatic initiatives. That imbalance has encouraged precisely the behaviour now threatening the Gaza plan. If every Israeli objection results in Washington modifying its own position, Netanyahu has little incentive to compromise.
The United States possesses considerable leverage and should finally be prepared to use it.
Military assistance, diplomatic protection and the depth of the bilateral relationship give Washington influence that no other outside power possesses.
Exercising that influence does not require abandoning Israel. It requires insisting that an agreement promoted by the American president cannot be repeatedly rewritten whenever the Israeli government finds one of its obligations politically inconvenient.
There is also a wider regional interest at stake. The Middle East is already absorbing the consequences of the renewed US-Iran war, instability in Lebanon and disruption to trade and energy routes. Allowing Gaza to remain another permanent theatre of conflict increases the risk that these crises begin feeding into one another.
Pakistan and other states that have consistently supported a negotiated Palestinian settlement have every reason to urge Washington to prevent yet another diplomatic opportunity from being squandered.
Trump now faces a test of his own authority. He can allow Netanyahu to keep shifting the conditions until the Gaza plan becomes meaningless, or he can insist that Israeli commitments carry the same weight as those demanded of the Palestinians.
Peace requires concessions from all parties, and no agreement can survive if one participant is permitted to rewrite it unilaterally.
For all Trump’s boasts about deal-making, Gaza has produced a simpler question: who exactly is setting the terms?
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026