What Comes After the Trump-Netanyahu Meeting: A Moment of Testing or Recycling the Crisis?

What took place in the recent meeting between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu is not merely a ceremonial stop in a longstanding political relationship, but rather an intense expression of the strategic impasse facing the Israeli-American project in the aftermath of the genocidal war on Gaza. This impasse concerns not only the future of the war but also the future of the region and the limits of the ability to continue managing the conflict using the same old mechanisms.

Contrary to popular belief, the essence of the divergence between Trump and Netanyahu does not lie in a fundamental ideological disagreement or a political rupture, but rather in a growing difference regarding the timing of the transition from war to what comes next, as well as the conditions and limits of that transition. Trump, returning to the White House with the mentality of a dealmaker, sees the war in Gaza as a political and strategic burden that threatens his ability to restructure his international and regional priorities. On the other hand, Netanyahu views it as a last opportunity to regenerate his political survival, even if the price is prolonging destruction and deepening isolation.

Trump, who seems serious about moving to what he calls "the second stage" of his long-term plan, does so not out of an ethical motivation or commitment to the national rights of the Palestinian people, but rather from purely pragmatic calculations: ending an open-ended war without prospects, solidifying power dynamics, and opening a conditional reconstruction pathway that reintegrates the region into the American stability equation. This stage, as envisioned in Washington, does not mean a sovereign Palestinian state, but rather a politically deflated entity, tightly controlled from a security perspective, and regionally acceptable.

However, this vision directly clashes with Netanyahu's position. The man is neither capable nor qualified, politically or personally, to accept any formula understood as an end to the war or a clear Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Not only because he fundamentally rejects it, but because any such step would mean the dissolution of his coalition, the fall of his government, and possibly his final exit from the political scene. Hence, Netanyahu continues the policy of buying time by prolonging the war, emptying initiatives of their content, and betting on the erosion of international pressures.

Managing Costs and Post-War Obligations: Where Do Palestinians Stand?

In this context, discussing "disagreements" between the two men is as accurate as it is misleading. Yes, there is genuine tension, but it is tension within the same project, not outside it. Trump wants to transition beyond the war, while Netanyahu wants to remain entrenched in it for as long as possible. Neither of them endorses a project that would lead to the liberation of the Palestinians and their ability to self-determine, but they differ in terms of managing the costs.

Amidst this American-Israeli divergence, the most pressing question arises: Where do Palestinians stand and what are they doing?

The painful answer is that the Palestinian position remains imprisoned in a state of waiting, wagering on the "contradictions of others" instead of making actual investments in it. The absence of a Palestinian initiative does not leave a vacuum; it fills it with others according to their interests, often to the detriment of the national cause and the cohesion of Palestinian society, which is paying, and continues to pay, the price of Israeli aggression and the absence of an effective Palestinian political role.

After the Meeting: Who Will Fill the Political Vacuum?

The formation of a Palestinian national unity government, with a clear political program and a unifying reference, is no longer merely a political luxury or an ethical response; it has become a strategic tool capable of disrupting both American and Israeli calculations. A government of this kind does not eliminate the occupation, but it changes the Palestinians' position from that of a waiting recipient submerged in illusion to that of an active actor, imposing themselves as an indispensable party in any "next day" trajectory, and putting Washington in a tight spot regarding its narrative about stability and reconstruction.

Moreover, a serious Palestinian initiative could deepen the existing gap between Trump and Netanyahu. Trump, seeking an exit from the war, needs a Palestinian partner capable of disrupting Netanyahu's plans, which the latter fears particularly regarding the potential success of such a Palestinian regime in preventing the isolation of the Gaza Strip from the West Bank and what that implies for reviving the path to self-determination and the manifestation of a Palestinian state on the territory occupied since 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital.

Regarding the Arab world, the potential for influence has always existed, but the will remains hesitant. Arab countries possess genuine leverage against the Israeli game; however, they still deal with Washington reactively rather than proactively. Without a unified Palestinian position, these forces remain scattered, usable only partially, not for decisive influence.

The current moment, with all its complexities, holds a rare political opportunity, but it is not automatic. The gap between Trump and Netanyahu is not an illusion, but it will not translate into a Palestinian gain unless the Palestinians skillfully invest in it. Transitioning from a policy of waiting to a policy of initiative is no longer a tactical choice; it has become an urgent national necessity, not only to defend the cause but also for the Palestinian society itself, which is paying the price of occupation, division, and the absence of decision all at once.

Ultimately, it is no longer acceptable for Palestinians to remain prisoners of a spectator position in the conflict of others, or hostages to calculations not managed by their hands. The Palestinian street and its vibrant social forces, from youth and social movements to popular and civic activities and steadfast national figures seeking change, are called today to break the cycle of waiting and to press hard towards rebuilding the national political action. The absence of a Palestinian initiative does not neutralize our people from the conflict; rather, it leaves them exposed to unchecked Israeli aggression and projects being formulated above their heads. Restoring the role does not begin with slogans, but by enforcing the priority of unity, accountability, and genuine representation, as conditions for protecting the society before the cause, and for transforming the sacrifices of Gaza and the rest of Palestine from an open humanitarian cost into an effective political force. At this very moment, silence becomes complicity, and waiting amounts to a certain loss, while only initiative is the sole path to seize a place for Palestinians at a table being reshaped anew.

In a world being reshaped by force, there is no place for those waiting for the justice of others, but for those imposing themselves as an indispensable party that cannot be ignored.