Nournews: The recent meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump in Washington, and its outcomes, should be analyzed on two simultaneous levels: the operational-field level and the strategic-political level.

At the operational level, Netanyahu’s apology to Qatar regarding the recent attack targeting senior Hamas commanders, along with his commitment not to repeat it, is more than a mere diplomatic gesture. It is a product of regional pressures and a cost-benefit calculation by the Israeli government—costs that include concerns about regional backlash, pressures from U.S. regional allies, and the need to restore American credibility in relations with key Persian Gulf actors. This apology signals a fragility in Tel Aviv’s ability to fully advance its Gaza crisis plans, which the Israeli military had previously warned about.

At the strategic-political level, however, the project that Washington has now put forward fundamentally reflects a desire for “crisis management” rather than resolution. Trump’s proposed package, while symbolically including measures such as halting the war and delivering aid through the United Nations, is largely unilateral and designed in favor of Israel: it guarantees security and political-economic control without creating significant gains for Palestinians and effectively reinforces the logic of occupation. Such solutions typically lack trust-building mechanisms and long-term enforcement guarantees—making acceptance by the other side extremely difficult.

From the perspective of Hamas and the Resistance axis, such a plan is largely a repetition of failed versions. Hamas requires guarantees beyond a temporary cessation of hostilities, especially without practical backing: lifting the blockade, reconstruction under supervision, genuine local participation in Gaza’s governance, and legal safeguards against land seizures and forced displacement. Symbolic and temporary proposals cannot address the fundamental demands of the Resistance, particularly since disarmament and Hamas’s withdrawal from Gaza are key conditions of the plan; thus, rejection or non-acceptance by Hamas is highly likely.

Strategically, the more important point is that the recent developments show that the Resistance’s strategy has disrupted the balance, forcing external actors to make tactical adjustments and retreats in order to pursue their ambitious goals. This relative success has strategic implications and has come at a high human and political cost. The lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and extensive destruction of human and economic infrastructure are the price of this situation, which must not be overlooked.

The strategic implications for regional and international actors are clear: first, any sustainable solution requires a combination of security guarantees, economic reconstruction, and the restoration of local sovereignty—without this triad, agreements will remain fragile. Second, the U.S. and Israel, if they wish to exit the current deadlock, must move beyond unilateral and performative approaches and recognize that achieving a real balance of interests necessitates genuine participation of local actors and effective international institutions, as well as acknowledgment of Palestinians’ real rights and ownership of their land. Third, the international community must remain vigilant against processes that are merely formal and symbolic, emphasizing verifiable mechanisms and conditionality in aid delivery.

The Netanyahu-Trump meeting and the accompanying proposal lack the essential components for a sustainable solution. The Resistance has so far prevented the fulfillment of some objectives by the opposing side, but this relative victory must be transformed into tangible achievements through low-cost political solutions for people, emphasizing reconstruction and legal guarantees—otherwise, the cycle of violence and crisis will continue.