Mahmud Alrantisi
It can be said that the Israeli occupation state has lost significant standing in the eyes of theinternational community, particularly in the West, and its relations with the United Stateshave become strained, which has strategic implications for Israel’s future. When Israel’sdomestic politics align with its foreign relations, the country will face a major dilemma. Netanyahu has two options: he can confront the Zionist right with whom he has allied in recent years, or he can face off against Trump. In either scenario, Netanyahu is bound to lose.
Since October 7, the Israeli occupation state has pursued a series of objectives in its ongoingaggression in the Gaza Strip. These objectives centered on eradicating Palestinian resistanceand the Hamas movement, as well as forcibly liberating Israeli captives held by the resistance. Additionally, the Zionist right initially pursued goals aimed at displacing the entire populationof the Gaza Strip. This evolved into a focus on displacing the population of northern Gaza bystarving them and targeting their shelter areas. Israeli political and military circles alsodiscussed plans to remain in the Gaza Strip and govern it through administrations connectedto the occupation forces, which would not represent the will of the Palestinian people.
When we examine these main objectives, it becomes clear that none of them were achieved. On the contrary, the occupying state failed in a way that cannot be concealed. The Israelioccupation state was unable to eliminate the resistance. On the contrary, the Palestinianresistance succeeded in inflicting significant losses on the Israeli occupation. For instance, in January 2025 alone, the resistance killed more than 15 Israeli soldiers in the Gaza Strip. Numerous reports also indicated that in 2024, the resistance recruited thousands of new youngmen, a number nearly equivalent to the total of its martyrs during the war.
At this point, it is evident that the resistance maintained control and command of thebattlefield until the final days of the war. Moreover, it engaged in strategies of forceconservation and ambushes, and despite the lack of supply lines, it managed to sustain itsoperations in response.
From another perspective, Netanyahu had been claiming in recent months that he would not allow Hamas to continue its existence. However, before a ceasefire was announced, Netanyahu stated that they were awaiting Hamas’ response to the negotiation document. Hamas negotiated forcefully and insisted on several conditions, the most significant being thecomplete withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from Gaza, the return of displaced people totheir homes, and a prisoner exchange agreement.
Regarding the issue of prisoners, despite employing immense destructive force and utilizingall its security and technological capabilities, the Israeli occupation failed to free its captivesby force. Ultimately, the Israeli occupation forces concluded that reaching a new exchangeagreement with the resistance was the only viable way to secure the release of Israeli captives.
Hamas demanded a ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, the return of displaced persons, freedom of movement for Palestinians, the entry of 600 trucks of humanitarian aid into Gaza daily, and an honorable prisoner exchange agreement. In the final agreement, Hamas succeeded in achieving all these demands.
On the other hand, the Israeli occupation state has suffered substantial losses in terms of itsinternational reputation and diplomatic relations. The treatment of the Israeli occupation stateand its citizens will no longer be the same as it was prior to October 7. Even on the Europeancontinent, recent incidents, such as those in Amsterdam and Madrid, illustrate this shift, where participation by Israeli sports clubs and fans in European capitals was denied.
In Israeli domestic politics, there will be an internal struggle on two fronts: betweenNetanyahu and his allies, such as Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, and between Netanyahu and theopposition. A similar conflict will unfold within Israel’s security and military institutions overwho bears responsibility for the failure of October 7. The cracks in Israel that weretemporarily patched during the war are likely to deepen, becoming larger and more difficult toresolve.
Equally significant is the shift in the American position regarding these events. Trump, whoexerted considerable pressure on Netanyahu to accept a ceasefire, played a crucial role in achieving this outcome. The pressure applied by Trump not only influenced the immediatesituation but also serves as a key indicator of the nature of U.S.-Israel relations in the years tocome under Trump’s leadership.
The Israeli right made a major miscalculation regarding its expectations from Trump. Forinstance, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir had announced plans to presentsettlement projects in the Gaza Strip to Trump in the coming months. However, following thegovernment’s acceptance of the ceasefire agreement, Ben-Gvir and his party ministersresigned immediately. Another example is Zionist Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, whopredicted, with Trump’s support, that the annexation of the West Bank to Israel would takeplace in 2025.
However, this conflicts with Trump’s plans to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia andthe Israeli occupation state.
The Zionist right assumed that Trump’s second term would be a continuation of his first, which was a clear mistake. Many priorities have shifted, and there is a significantcontradiction between Trump’s vision for stability in the Middle East and the Zionist right’svision for the region. While Netanyahu and the Zionist right seek to destroy and reshape theMiddle East, Trump has explicitly stated his intention to stabilize the region and bring an endto ongoing wars in the Middle East and Ukraine.
The Israeli newspaper Maariv reported that Trump had sent a message to Netanyahuexpressing his discomfort with him and his loss of confidence in his leadership. It is not out of the question that Trump may prefer to see a new Israeli prime minister in Tel Aviv instead of Netanyahu.
Additionally, the Israeli occupation state has lost significant standing in the eyes of theinternational community, particularly in the West, and its relations with the United Stateshave become strained. This has strategic implications for Israel’s future. When Israel’sdomestic politics and foreign relations align, the country will face a major dilemma. Netanyahu has two options: either confront the Zionist right, with whom he has allied in recent years, or face off against Trump. In either scenario, Netanyahu is destined to lose.