On Friday afternoon in New York, Benjamin Netanyahu stood before the green marble backdrop of the United Nations General Assembly and delivered a familiar speech. It was combative, defiant, well-written, and sprinkled with props.
He told the world that Israel “must finish the job” against Hamas, called out “weak-kneed leaders who appease evil,” and memorably said that “giving the Palestinians a state one mile from Jerusalem after October 7 is like giving al-Qaeda a state one mile from New York City after September 11.”
Three days later, the stage shifts from the UN’s cavernous hall to the Oval Office. The UN was theater; Washington is substance.
On Monday, Netanyahu will meet US President Donald Trump for the fourth time since Trump was sworn back into office in January. Hovering over the meeting is talk of a 21-point Trump plan – more a sketch circulating among aides than a published blueprint – a sweeping proposal that would end the Israel-Hamas War, free the hostages, and lay the foundations for what Trump’s aides are calling a “new reality” in the region.
For Netanyahu, the juxtaposition is telling. On Friday, he was isolated in the UN – a leader defiant but largely alone in the international community. On Monday, he will be embraced, sitting alongside the one ally whose backing matters most.
Yet that embrace may come at a price. Trump is pressing for a deal, and Netanyahu may be asked to make concessions that he and his coalition will find difficult to swallow.
Details of Trump’s proposal remain sketchy, since no official draft has been published and much of what has been described – both ambitious and blunt – remains unconfirmed and may be more aspirational than operational.
According to various reports, the hostages would be released within 48 hours of an agreement; Israel would release some 250 terrorists sentenced to life; IDF troops would begin a phased withdrawal from all of Gaza, except for a still‑undefined “perimeter”; and Hamas’s offensive weaponry would be slated for destruction.
A transitional governance structure – made up of “qualified Palestinians” and international experts – would manage Gaza’s day-to-day affairs. The plan would also leave a pathway open toward eventual Palestinian statehood, albeit couched in conditions and caveats.
All of these points are only broad strokes. Crucial questions remain unanswered: Who forces Hamas to surrender weapons? Who underwrites reconstruction in a territory where tens of billions of dollars have already gone up in smoke? Who polices a “phased withdrawal”? Who ensures that aid to Gaza rebuilds civilian infrastructure and does not rearm terrorists?
Still, the very existence of a plan – even one as aspirational as this – is significant. It now puts Netanyahu on the spot, because saying “no” to Trump is very different from saying “no” to French President Emmanuel Macron or British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
Three outcomes possible from Netanyahu-Trump meeting
When Netanyahu sits down with Trump on Monday, three broad outcomes are possible, and each carries profound consequences for Israel, for Gaza, and for the region.
The first is a full or partial embrace of the plan. In this scenario, the prime minister surprises his caustic critics by signaling conditional support. He might say he is ready to explore the plan’s contours, stress Israel’s willingness to pay “a painful price” for the hostages, and cast himself as the statesman ready to compromise for peace.
Such a move would delight Trump, reassure Arab capitals desperate for calm, and ease some of Israel’s international isolation. It could even reenergize normalization contacts with Saudi Arabia – especially with the clause leaving open a pathway to a Palestinian state.
But the risks at home would be severe. Coalition partners Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir would cry betrayal and might bolt the government, paving the way for early elections. Netanyahu would face accusations even within Likud that he surrendered Israel’s war aims for a deal dictated from Washington.
The second option is a flat refusal. Netanyahu could tell Trump that Israel will not stop fighting until Hamas is completely crushed, no matter how many points are in an American plan. He could repeat the theme from his UN speech: Israel decides for itself, not outsiders.
This would satisfy his right-wing allies. It would also keep military pressure on Hamas and perhaps even push the terrorist group closer to collapse.
But rejection carries other costs. Israel’s diplomatic isolation would deepen. European calls to suspend trade agreements would accelerate. Arab states might abandon mediation efforts. And Trump, who prides himself on deal-making, may not appreciate being brushed off.
If Arab leaders publicly endorse the plan, Netanyahu – not Hamas – would likely be painted as the obstacle to peace.
The likeliest outcome, however, is somewhere in between – what might be called creative ambiguity. Netanyahu may praise Trump’s “historic initiative,” declare Israel open to exploring its elements, but attach several conditions.
This path buys time. Trump can claim progress; Netanyahu avoids rupture with the US. Each side can spin it as a win at home.
But ambiguity has its price: It keeps the war simmering, prolongs the hostages’ suffering, and risks creating yet another diplomatic process with no end in sight.
Whatever path Netanyahu chooses, the hostages are the factor that outweighs all others. Their fate hangs over every negotiation, every plan, every battlefield development.
The demand in Israel for their return is unrelenting. Any plan that credibly secures their release will have enormous pull, even if it requires concessions that were previously deemed unacceptable.
Trump understands this. By placing the hostages’ release at the very top of his 21 points, he frames the entire plan around Israel’s rawest nerve. Netanyahu will find it difficult to walk away from a proposal that promises to bring them home, even if he doubts the plan’s other elements.
The choreography of these 72 hours illustrates the paradox of Israel’s position. At the UN, Netanyahu was hemmed in and isolated. In Washington, he will be welcomed as indispensable, a partner with whom the US president is personally engaged in hammering out a way forward.
This contrast is not new. Israel has long experienced the cold shoulder of international forums and the warm handshake of American presidents. But rarely has the gap been so stark.
Meanwhile, back home, Netanyahu is not just negotiating with Trump or Hamas, he is also dealing with his own coalition. Every hint of compromise reverberates instantly through the political system. The far Right sees betrayal. The opposition sees opportunities to pounce.
The prime minister’s survival depends on calibrating these pressures: Too many concessions, and his coalition cracks; too few, and support in the White House erodes.
The Netanyahu–Trump meeting is unlikely to immediately end the war. However, it will help define the parameters of how things will likely look once it does end.
On Friday, Netanyahu told the UN that Israel “must finish the job.” On Monday, Trump may tell him that the job is finished enough.