Trump and Netanyahu: A Third Meeting in Washington Amid Gaza Turmoil

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s latest visit to Washington marks his third in less than six months. In the aftermath of his military confrontations with Iran, Netanyahu is expected to shift his focus toward the southern front, particularly Gaza, where he will attempt to draw US President Donald Trump closer to his position—if only to shield himself from political pressures that could jeopardize his fragile ruling coalition.

Netanyahu’s anticipated strategy in dealing with Trump’s potential pressure over Iran and Gaza is clear: protect military achievements without offering political concessions. He arrives in Washington determined to maintain the gains from recent military campaigns and to avoid any compromises that could weaken his standing among his hardline supporters.

A report published by The Guardian under the headline “Netanyahu Returns to the White House Holding All the Cards in Gaza Talks,” authored by Andrew Roth, suggests that Netanyahu’s visit to the White House comes as President Trump attempts once again to mediate a peace deal for Gaza. Netanyahu, however, enters the talks emboldened by what he considers military successes, both against Iran and in strikes on what the report calls “Iran’s proxies in the Middle East.” According to Middle East experts quoted in the report, Netanyahu’s strong domestic political position gives him the diplomatic cover he needs to pursue an end to the Gaza war without risking the collapse of his government.

Yet, the report raises a crucial question about Trump’s patience with Netanyahu—how long will Trump tolerate the slow pace of Gaza ceasefire negotiations? Despite Trump’s self-promotion as a dealmaker, the timing and outcome of any Gaza ceasefire may ultimately lie beyond his control, largely due to the complex nature of Israel’s coalition politics. Far-right leaders such as Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich are pushing hard against any form of ceasefire or prisoner swap deal with Hamas. In this context, Israel Hayom reported that while Hamas presented a response containing some reservations, it has not outright rejected the proposal, suggesting that mounting military pressure is forcing it to show some flexibility.

Meanwhile, calls are growing within Israel for a comprehensive agreement rather than another partial or temporary truce. However, such calls face fierce opposition from the extremist elements within Netanyahu’s coalition. For ministers like Smotrich and Ben Gvir, settlements are not mere policies but ideological cornerstones. Their political agenda is far from seeking a ceasefire; instead, they are focused on reshaping regional dynamics and positioning themselves for the upcoming 2026 elections. Netanyahu’s government shows no indication that it is prepared to seriously commit to ending the war.

Anna Barsky, in an article for Maariv, suggested that the Likud Party may soon be led by a dual political campaign: Netanyahu at home and Trump abroad. Her analysis hints at unease over Trump’s recent comments regarding Netanyahu’s ongoing corruption trial—comments that were widely interpreted as a form of direct political support for Netanyahu. Barsky’s article, however, overlooks the possibility that Netanyahu’s current government could become a liability for Trump’s broader regional strategies, particularly given its destabilizing actions that have complicated Israel’s relations with several countries it had previously normalized ties with.

Adding further complexity to Netanyahu’s Washington trip, the Jerusalem District Court postponed Netanyahu’s scheduled testimony in his criminal trial to accommodate his visit. In Yedioth Ahronoth, veteran journalist Nahum Barnea wrote a sharply critical piece titled “No One Should Be Surprised by Trump’s Interference in Netanyahu’s Trial.” Barnea argued that U.S. administrations have long played roles in Israeli politics, recalling the Clinton administration’s efforts to sway the Shas Party to support Yitzhak Rabin. However, Barnea accused Trump of openly undermining judicial independence, warning that Trump’s social media interventions regarding Netanyahu’s trial risk eroding the integrity of Israel’s judiciary.

The evolving scene reflects a tangled web of personal ambition, geopolitical power plays, and deep internal divisions within Israel. Netanyahu may enjoy temporary diplomatic cover in Washington, but the longer-term implications—whether for Gaza, U.S.-Israeli relations, or his political survival—remain uncertain, especially with increasing concerns over judicial interference, coalition tensions, and unpredictable shifts in U.S. policy under Trump.