The series of visits by senior US administration officials to Israel, alongside the deployment of American forces at the forward headquarters in Kiryat Gat overseeing the Gaza ceasefire agreement, reflect President Trump’s strong commitment to ensuring the agreement’s success. From his perspective, the agreement is intended to serve as a foundation for a new regional architecture in the Middle East, centered on expanding the Abraham Accords.
The administration, led by Trump and his senior advisers, presents a tough stance toward Hamas, including a threat of military action should it violate the agreement or refuse to disarm. At the same time, the administration is exerting increasing pressure on Israel to avoid actions that could jeopardize the ceasefire’s implementation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reiterated that “there is no Plan B” and that the agreement is the sole path to stability. Trump himself continues to emphasize that Israel will act only “if he approves it,” implying that he alone will determine whether Hamas has breached the agreement. Furthermore, the president has promised that “Israel will not apply sovereignty over territories in the West Bank.”
Despite broad understandings between Jerusalem and Washington, the American determination to accelerate implementation may generate significant gaps between the sides, especially if the administration seeks to “move forward” before all complex issues are resolved. Notable among these are:
The Multinational Force: The administration is expected to push for early deployment of the force, possibly before full agreement has been reached on its mandate and the participating countries (including the question of Turkish involvement). Israel, for its part, insists on tight control regarding its composition, operations, and coordination with security and humanitarian agencies.
Demilitarization: The United States favors an international mechanism under its supervision to ensure a phased disarmament process alongside a gradual Israeli withdrawal. Israel insists on complete dismantling of terrorist infrastructure as a precondition for any change in troop deployment and rejects parallel or reciprocal frameworks. No agreed-upon timeline or benchmarks for assessing progress have yet been established.
Governance Alternative: Washington, backed by Arab states, tends to soften the condition that the interim governing body be fully detached from the Palestinian Authority, while Israel opposes the inclusion of figures affiliated with it or with Hamas and demands binding security guarantees before reducing the IDF’s presence.
Reconstruction of Gaza: The United States seeks to launch already in Phase II a large-scale civilian reconstruction plan funded by a Western-Arab coalition as a basis for civil and economic stability. Israel, however, conditions any reconstruction step on the completion of disarmament and strict security oversight, rejecting the transfer of funds before “the military threat is completely removed.”
In conclusion, the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire agreement places US–Israel relations in a delicate test between an American political vision and Israel’s imperative to maintain security control. While Trump views the agreement as a lever for building a new regional order, Israel’s priority remains safeguarding its security and operational independence. The ability to bridge these differences will determine whether the agreement matures into a stable regional process or collapses under strategic disagreements between the closest of allies.
The series of visits by senior US administration officials to Israel, alongside the deployment of American forces at the forward headquarters in Kiryat Gat overseeing the Gaza ceasefire agreement, reflect President Trump’s strong commitment to ensuring the agreement’s success. From his perspective, the agreement is intended to serve as a foundation for a new regional architecture in the Middle East, centered on expanding the Abraham Accords.
The administration, led by Trump and his senior advisers, presents a tough stance toward Hamas, including a threat of military action should it violate the agreement or refuse to disarm. At the same time, the administration is exerting increasing pressure on Israel to avoid actions that could jeopardize the ceasefire’s implementation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reiterated that “there is no Plan B” and that the agreement is the sole path to stability. Trump himself continues to emphasize that Israel will act only “if he approves it,” implying that he alone will determine whether Hamas has breached the agreement. Furthermore, the president has promised that “Israel will not apply sovereignty over territories in the West Bank.”
Despite broad understandings between Jerusalem and Washington, the American determination to accelerate implementation may generate significant gaps between the sides, especially if the administration seeks to “move forward” before all complex issues are resolved. Notable among these are:
The Multinational Force: The administration is expected to push for early deployment of the force, possibly before full agreement has been reached on its mandate and the participating countries (including the question of Turkish involvement). Israel, for its part, insists on tight control regarding its composition, operations, and coordination with security and humanitarian agencies.
Demilitarization: The United States favors an international mechanism under its supervision to ensure a phased disarmament process alongside a gradual Israeli withdrawal. Israel insists on complete dismantling of terrorist infrastructure as a precondition for any change in troop deployment and rejects parallel or reciprocal frameworks. No agreed-upon timeline or benchmarks for assessing progress have yet been established.
Governance Alternative: Washington, backed by Arab states, tends to soften the condition that the interim governing body be fully detached from the Palestinian Authority, while Israel opposes the inclusion of figures affiliated with it or with Hamas and demands binding security guarantees before reducing the IDF’s presence.
Reconstruction of Gaza: The United States seeks to launch already in Phase II a large-scale civilian reconstruction plan funded by a Western-Arab coalition as a basis for civil and economic stability. Israel, however, conditions any reconstruction step on the completion of disarmament and strict security oversight, rejecting the transfer of funds before “the military threat is completely removed.”
In conclusion, the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire agreement places US–Israel relations in a delicate test between an American political vision and Israel’s imperative to maintain security control. While Trump views the agreement as a lever for building a new regional order, Israel’s priority remains safeguarding its security and operational independence. The ability to bridge these differences will determine whether the agreement matures into a stable regional process or collapses under strategic disagreements between the closest of allies.