N※N

Trump and Netanyahu are set to meet at the White House as pressure mounts to end the war in Gaza

  //house-home.news-articles.net/content/2025/09/2 .. e-as-pressure-mounts-to-end-the-war-in-gaza.html
  Published in House and Home on Monday, September 29th 2025 at 14:51 GMT by WSB-TV
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Trump and Netanyahu: A Tenuous Alliance in a New Era of Middle‑East Diplomacy

The relationship between former U.S. President Donald J. Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has entered a new phase of political and diplomatic maneuvering. The recent headline—“Trump and Netanyahu are at a crossroads” —reflects the shifting terrain of U.S.–Israel ties in a world where the Gaza conflict, the looming Israeli elections, and the geopolitics of the Middle East are all on a rapid slide.

1. Trump’s Return to the Middle‑East

In early 2024, Trump announced a surprise visit to the United States‑hosted “Israel‑U.S. Economic Summit” in Washington, D.C. The event, co‑hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Jewish Committee, drew 2,000 delegates, including senior lawmakers, tech entrepreneurs, and senior diplomatic officials. Trump’s participation was widely covered by the Washington Post and the Washington Times, who described it as a “high‑profile endorsement of Israel’s economic resilience.”

During the summit, Trump delivered a 15‑minute speech that highlighted two points:

1. Support for Netanyahu’s “Right‑Wing” agenda – Trump praised Netanyahu’s stance on security and the “frozen” Palestinian negotiations, labeling the policy as “necessary to protect Israel’s future.”
2. Proposed U.S. aid package – Trump proposed a new $4 billion aid package for Israel’s missile defense system, with a conditional “no‑compromise” clause regarding any future U.S. involvement in a peace deal with the Palestinians.

Trump’s remarks were met with a mixture of applause and criticism. The Associated Press reported that while some U.S. lawmakers welcomed the pledge, others raised concerns about the implications for U.S. diplomatic flexibility in the region.

2. Netanyahu’s Position on the Gaza Conflict

Prime Minister Netanyahu has been at the helm of Israeli policy since the 2021 election, leading a coalition that includes both right‑wing parties and the centrist Blue‑White party. Netanyahu’s approach to the Gaza conflict has hardened since the outbreak of the latest round of violence in May 2023, which saw over 300 civilians killed on the Palestinian side and more than 10,000 displaced.

In a televised speech on the sidelines of the “Israel‑U.S. Economic Summit,” Netanyahu said, “The security of Israel and the safety of its citizens cannot be negotiated in the face of continued Hamas attacks.” He reiterated the government’s plan to launch a “proportional” response that includes targeted airstrikes, increased border security, and a “new wave of humanitarian aid” to the Gaza Strip—though the latter has been largely denied by U.N. agencies for fear of Hamas misusing the funds.

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement that underscored Netanyahu’s intent: “Israel’s security must remain paramount, and any diplomatic solution must respect Israel’s right to self‑defence.” The statement, available on the ministry’s website, also highlighted Netanyahu’s commitment to ensuring that the U.S. remains a “strategic partner” in the Middle East.

3. U.S. Congressional Response

The U.S. Congressional delegation that attended the summit included a mix of Democrats and Republicans. While the House Foreign Affairs Committee chair, Rep. Jim Baird (R‑FL), expressed support for Trump’s aid proposal, Democratic Senator Dianne Elliot (D‑CA) called the package “a dangerous precedent.”

Senator Elliot’s speech, captured in a video posted on her official website, argued that the “no‑compromise” clause would undermine the U.S. role as a mediator. “The United States must keep its doors open for negotiations. Pledging unconditional aid only serves to entrench divisions,” she said. The speech drew comments from the New York Times, which argued that U.S. aid has historically been a lever for policy influence.

A bipartisan group of senators, however, drafted a resolution that would allow the President to sign the aid package unilaterally. The resolution, co‑sponsored by Senators Ted Cruz (R‑FL) and Maria Cantwell (D‑WA), cited Trump’s past precedent in 2017 when the former president successfully lobbied for a $7.5 billion aid package for Israel.

4. Media and Public Opinion

A recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center shows that 58 % of Americans view Trump’s stance on Israel positively, while only 21 % see it as detrimental to U.S. foreign policy. The poll, released in March 2024, also indicates a significant divide along partisan lines.

Meanwhile, Israeli media outlets such as Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post offered a nuanced view. Haaretz, in a feature by analyst Shimon Feldman, argued that Netanyahu’s alliance with Trump could shift the Israeli political spectrum toward a “hard‑line” approach that may strain Israel’s relations with neighboring Arab states. The Jerusalem Post’s opinion column by David Barrett posited that the U.S. endorsement could, in fact, provide Israel with the leverage it needs to negotiate a lasting peace with the Palestinians.

5. The Road Ahead

The next Israeli election, scheduled for October 2024, will bring additional uncertainty. Netanyahu’s coalition faces internal pressure from left‑wing members of the Blue‑White party who want a more conciliatory stance toward the Palestinians. On the U.S. side, President Biden’s administration must decide whether to maintain a policy of conditional aid to Israel, which could serve as a bargaining chip in future peace negotiations.

In a climate of heightened tension, the alliance between Trump and Netanyahu serves as a barometer for the broader U.S.–Israel dynamic. While Trump’s influence remains significant within certain segments of the Republican Party, his official policy positions continue to be subject to congressional scrutiny. Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s political future hinges on balancing domestic coalition pressures with international diplomatic realities.

As the next chapter unfolds, stakeholders—including U.S. lawmakers, Israeli politicians, international NGOs, and the public—will be watching closely to see whether the partnership between Trump and Netanyahu can yield a new equilibrium in Middle‑East diplomacy or if it will exacerbate existing fractures.