Israel’s Strategy for Managing Tensions with the US
Al-Ittihad, UAE, May 17
Israeli media outlets have highlighted significant rifts between the US administration and the Israeli government, particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, stemming from disagreements over how negotiations and the ongoing conflict are being managed as well as over broader priorities shaping bilateral relations.
These tensions appear to go beyond transient political positions or reactive policies; they are not simply tied to how the Middle East is being navigated politically, nor are they a direct response to the tone set by President Donald Trump during his recent tour of the region.
They are also not just about the US president’s push to end the war in Gaza, secure a prisoner exchange deal, and confront the increasingly aggressive Israeli policies, especially following the release of American hostage Edan Alexander.
President Trump’s success in managing US relations with the Gulf states can be attributed to his understanding of their central role in guiding regional strategy, participating in diplomatic deals, easing tensions, and solving crises born out of the October 7, 2023, events and their far-reaching repercussions.
Regardless of the outcomes of President Trump’s visit to the region and amid efforts to redefine Arab-American ties, key developments are on the horizon, the most pivotal of which is the need to interpret American-Israeli differences through a strategic and political lens.
The current tensions may dissipate in the short term if a ceasefire is achieved and a prisoner exchange is completed, thereby restoring a semblance of normalcy to bilateral relations, especially since President Trump is actively advocating for de-escalation in Gaza, regardless of his specific proposals for managing the territory.
Such issues must be approached with a pragmatic understanding of the facts on the ground, particularly as Hamas appears to be shifting toward a more realistic stance that could mark the beginning of a new chapter in its engagement with the US administration, potentially transforming it into a significant actor in ongoing developments.
This evolution would likely be contingent on Hamas relinquishing control of Gaza in favor of an administrative committee overseen by the Palestinian Authority (PA), in alignment with both international and Arab calls for reforming the PA’s governance.
Give the gift of hope
We practice what we preach:
accurate, fearless journalism. But we can't do it alone.
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
Join us.
Support The Media Line. Save democracy.
The scale of the changes following President Trump’s visit, along with their implications, will likely bring about further repositioning across the board.
Whether Israel embraces or opposes the unfolding events, disputes are bound to intensify if the US administration continues to engage directly with Hamas by supporting mediation efforts.
This scenario would establish a workable and necessary equation for future negotiations, though it would inevitably face obstacles, chief among them, the debate over Hamas’ role, even if it steps back from day-to-day governance.
Particularly complex will be the question of disarming Palestinian factions within Gaza and placing those weapons under a regulated framework, which will demand mechanisms and policy stances that go beyond the current scope of expectations.
Should the US initiative to distribute humanitarian aid in Gaza and modify governance structures prove successful, complications may still arise regarding the extent and nature of Arab involvement and the broader reconstruction effort.
This remains a contentious issue between Washington and certain Arab states that resist any American or Israeli presence, even temporarily—a position that could hinder forthcoming steps.
Naturally, once a prisoner exchange deal is finalized, the process would shift to the next phase of implementation, which has yet to occur given Israel’s resistance and the measures it continues to employ in Gaza.
Despite existing disagreements, this has not derailed the parallel positions held by the US and Israel, which appear to be coordinating measures while monitoring evolving political dynamics among all involved parties.
American diplomatic outreach to Hamas remains active, underpinned by the belief that the release of prisoners is a critical foundation upon which further progress can be made, especially under US pressure directed at the Israeli government to facilitate a new phase of engagement.
Without such efforts, diverging visions could deepen, resulting in a stalemate where Hamas—operating on a strategy rooted in the pursuit of legitimacy—emerges as the primary beneficiary of continued disunity.
The US administration, and President Trump in particular, appears to hold a clear long-term vision for managing this enduring friction with the Israeli leadership, one that includes the potential support for an alternative political coalition in Israel that is more open to compromise.
Such a development could precipitate the collapse or reformation of Netanyahu’s current coalition, though President Trump is unlikely to pursue this route unless a major breach in the relationship occurs—a scenario that, for now, seems improbable.
Although political differences will persist, they are unlikely to undermine the fundamental strength and durability of US-Israeli relations.
Tarek Fahmy (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)
