Trump or Ben-Gvir? Netanyahu faces a historic trap in Washington - analysis

Even before any potential handshake is captured on camera, it is clear that Netanyahu faces a difficult choice. The White House is pressing him to sign a ceasefire agreement that includes clauses at odds with his own stated positions.

Meanwhile, key coalition members are warning of political consequences should he accept terms that violate their redlines.

Other provisions include the daily entry of hundreds of aid trucks, deep demilitarization of Gaza, an international stabilization force accompanied by trained Palestinian police, and regional security guarantees.

Most significantly, the plan proposes a pathway toward the creation of a Palestinian state, conditional upon reforms and a successful reconstruction process.

That clause is a major point of contention for Netanyahu, who has long opposed a two-state solution and campaigned against such a policy throughout his career.

Trump is personally invested in the effort to secure a ceasefire and long-term resolution. He has expressed optimism in public statements, declaring that the sides are “very close to a deal.”

Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner have been deeply involved in recent negotiations, shuttling between New York and Washington and meeting Netanyahu twice at his hotel to push for approval of the plan. The administration has also called on Arab states to contribute funding and security assistance.

Across the international arena, frustration with Israel is growing. Gulf states and European governments are applying pressure, citing the need for stability and threatening economic boycotts, punitive measures, and suspensions from cultural and sporting events. For the White House, this is viewed as a defining moment.

Back in Jerusalem, Netanyahu’s far-right coalition partners have made it clear they will not support any agreement that softens Israel’s war aims.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir (Otzma Yehudit) said Netanyahu had “no mandate to end the war without defeating Hamas.” Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich (Religious Zionist Party) said his party “will never agree to a Palestinian state, even if it is hard; even if it takes time.”

MK Orit Strock (RZP) listed five specific conditions: the complete disarmament of Hamas, the return of all hostages, full demilitarization carried out by Israel alone, permanent Israeli security control in Gaza, and a civilian administration not run by Hamas or the Palestinian Authority. She warned that any deviation from these terms would require “returning the mandate to the public.”

FOR SMOTRICH and Ben-Gvir, this position is central to their political identity. Accepting the current American proposal would likely lead to the collapse of the government.

While the right flank of the coalition holds firm, other voices are urging flexibility. Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar (New Hope-United Right) said he trusts the prime minister “to represent Israel’s interests as required in talks with President Trump.”

United Torah Judaism MK Moshe Gafni, leader of the Degel Hatorah faction, was brief in his comments. “Our position is to end the war and bring the hostages home,” he said.

UTJ, which is now outside the coalition, has shown a greater willingness to consider compromise. Its members have focused more on the urgency of returning the hostages and restoring calm, and less on the PA’s role. That stance is more closely aligned with recent polling, which reflects war fatigue among the Israeli public.

Netanyahu appears to be pursuing a strategy of delay. Sources close to the prime minister suggest he may request additional time from the White House to make “adjustments” and seek “improvements” to the plan.

He may also attempt to shift blame for any stalemate onto Hamas by claiming that it refuses to accept key terms. Alternatively, he may hope that regional developments change the current equation. However, early indications suggest the Trump administration is not prepared to accept further delays.

Meanwhile, Israel is facing increasing diplomatic isolation. Threats of boycotts, international flotillas headed toward Gaza, and decisions by major corporations to suspend services have all intensified in recent weeks.

While these actions are often described in Israel as part of a public-diplomacy problem, foreign governments and international organizations see it as a matter of policy. Without a clear political plan, many view the ongoing war as indefinite and unsustainable.

Monday’s meeting in Washington is far from routine. It may represent a personal and political crossroads for Netanyahu. Accepting the US plan could result in the collapse of his coalition. Rejecting it may trigger a confrontation with the White House and further isolation for Israel.

At the same time, dozens of Israeli hostages remain in Gaza. For many Israelis, their safe return remains the highest priority, above any political calculation.

Netanyahu is now faced with a decision that carries significant consequences. The outcome of the White House meeting may determine not only the course of the Gaza war, but also the fate of his government and his long-term political future.