The new US-backed framework appears to address one of Israel’s central security demands. But with elections just two months away, political considerations may be getting in the way.
You say "Netanyahu could say: we accepted the process, and Hamas rejected its obligations." Change "Hamas" for "Hezbollah, and "Gaza" for "Lebanon". Move the timeline to the 80's. Then add the UNIFIL. Where was the "better diplomatic position"? Anywhere to be seen.
Not only Washington and Fouad Alkhatib talk about Netanyahu's actions in Gaza as politically motivated. Astonishingly, one of the more prominent right-wing voices in Israeli punditry, Amit Segal, wrote as much in a recent piece: "Israel touts its expanding control of the Strip, though in reality there's no advance of forces or new positions, only the widening of our troops' firing line against approaching threats...in the background there's another, political worry: with less than three months to the election, any withdrawal or agreement hurts Likud and the coalition. Ben-Gvir will bite from the right; Lieberman, Bennett, and Eisenkot from the left." (https://www.israelhayom.com/2026/08/07/a-few-concrete-blocks-will-shape-the-fate-of-the-entire-middle-east/)
In terms of Netanyahu's long-term strategy, I wrote this in a comment to the post "Why Did Netanyahu Reject Trump's Gaza Deal To Disarm Hamas?" in some detail, so I'll just briefly repeat here. Netanyahu's political strategy in virtually all arenas, domestic and foreign, is to refrain from setting an eventual goal or vision, and instead to seize the status quo with both hands. Adopting any long-term vision would mean alienating some part of his electorate, because every vision is imperfect. The status quo, even an awful one, doesn't get that much media coverage (how many headlines of "Hamas still rules Gaza!" can you run?). For an even better example of this, look no further than the West Bank, where Netanyahu keeps attacking the PA, but never will posit a vision for what he'd want to see instead.
That’s interesting I have always thought of him as center left. Unfortunately my Hebrew is not that good anymore. I read his columns daily and never thought of his as right wing.
That is interesting, he's a solidly right-wing voice. I'd also be very very wary of his stuff, there are certainly more unreasonable commentators but he inserts all sorts of assumptions into his commentary that can create the wrong impressions without saying explicit falsehoods.
That is an interesting take. Who would you recommend then to listen to. Well other than Haviv Rettig Gur or anyone who appears on the Times of Israel. I listen to them already
The intuitive alternative to Amit Segal would be Nadav Eyal, who is closer to the sort of "middle Israel" perspective, and also writes in English. I would also recommend Yaakov Katz and the INSS (https://www.inss.org.il/).
But like I said, it really depends what you're looking for.
Thanks. I listen to Nadav and get his column. I will check out the other org. I tend to look at all part of the political spectrum in Israel. Interesting takes on how they view their society. Also as a nonIsraeli I dont comment per se on who to vote for as I will not be the one to live with the consequences of that vote (no matter what some selfcentered Jews in the diaspora think)
I'm a little puzzled by this comment-- Segal is a very prominent right-wing figure, he doesn't like to label himself that way but it's very clear in his writings. And he has occasionally said so explicitly, if you can read Hebrew there's this source:
There's also some interview with Dan Senor where he talks about how his son asked him why he can't vote with the non-Netanyahu bloc, and he explains. I can look for that, but I don't know what in Segal's commentary makes him sound center-left.
The agreement says "personal weapons" will be handled according to "Palestinian law", so Hamas could issue firearms licenses to each of its members and let them keep their Kalashnikovs.
An indication of how far this agreement is from "disarming and decommissioning Hamas weapons" is that Hamas absolutely insists the weapons must not be removed from Gaza. Why not, if they're not available to Hamas and have been "decommissioned"? What does Hamas have to lose if the weapons it gave up and have been rendered useless are disposed of outside of Gaza?
No doubt if the agreement said all the weapons would be moved out of Gaza entirely, Israel would have jumped to agree.
You say "Netanyahu could say: we accepted the process, and Hamas rejected its obligations." Change "Hamas" for "Hezbollah, and "Gaza" for "Lebanon". Move the timeline to the 80's. Then add the UNIFIL. Where was the "better diplomatic position"? Anywhere to be seen.
I think Israel absolutely benefited from having the better diplomatic position for many years, though?
How?
Look at the high levels of support they had for many years from Americans.
Not only Washington and Fouad Alkhatib talk about Netanyahu's actions in Gaza as politically motivated. Astonishingly, one of the more prominent right-wing voices in Israeli punditry, Amit Segal, wrote as much in a recent piece: "Israel touts its expanding control of the Strip, though in reality there's no advance of forces or new positions, only the widening of our troops' firing line against approaching threats...in the background there's another, political worry: with less than three months to the election, any withdrawal or agreement hurts Likud and the coalition. Ben-Gvir will bite from the right; Lieberman, Bennett, and Eisenkot from the left." (https://www.israelhayom.com/2026/08/07/a-few-concrete-blocks-will-shape-the-fate-of-the-entire-middle-east/)
In terms of Netanyahu's long-term strategy, I wrote this in a comment to the post "Why Did Netanyahu Reject Trump's Gaza Deal To Disarm Hamas?" in some detail, so I'll just briefly repeat here. Netanyahu's political strategy in virtually all arenas, domestic and foreign, is to refrain from setting an eventual goal or vision, and instead to seize the status quo with both hands. Adopting any long-term vision would mean alienating some part of his electorate, because every vision is imperfect. The status quo, even an awful one, doesn't get that much media coverage (how many headlines of "Hamas still rules Gaza!" can you run?). For an even better example of this, look no further than the West Bank, where Netanyahu keeps attacking the PA, but never will posit a vision for what he'd want to see instead.
This strategy, sadly, works.
That’s interesting I have always thought of him as center left. Unfortunately my Hebrew is not that good anymore. I read his columns daily and never thought of his as right wing.
That is interesting, he's a solidly right-wing voice. I'd also be very very wary of his stuff, there are certainly more unreasonable commentators but he inserts all sorts of assumptions into his commentary that can create the wrong impressions without saying explicit falsehoods.
That is an interesting take. Who would you recommend then to listen to. Well other than Haviv Rettig Gur or anyone who appears on the Times of Israel. I listen to them already
Well that depends on what you're looking for :)
The intuitive alternative to Amit Segal would be Nadav Eyal, who is closer to the sort of "middle Israel" perspective, and also writes in English. I would also recommend Yaakov Katz and the INSS (https://www.inss.org.il/).
But like I said, it really depends what you're looking for.
Thanks. I listen to Nadav and get his column. I will check out the other org. I tend to look at all part of the political spectrum in Israel. Interesting takes on how they view their society. Also as a nonIsraeli I dont comment per se on who to vote for as I will not be the one to live with the consequences of that vote (no matter what some selfcentered Jews in the diaspora think)
Amit Segal is not right wing. He is left of center. If you want a right wing Israeli pundit listen to Gadi Taub.
I'm a little puzzled by this comment-- Segal is a very prominent right-wing figure, he doesn't like to label himself that way but it's very clear in his writings. And he has occasionally said so explicitly, if you can read Hebrew there's this source:
https://www.inn.co.il/news/503795
There's also some interview with Dan Senor where he talks about how his son asked him why he can't vote with the non-Netanyahu bloc, and he explains. I can look for that, but I don't know what in Segal's commentary makes him sound center-left.
The agreement says "personal weapons" will be handled according to "Palestinian law", so Hamas could issue firearms licenses to each of its members and let them keep their Kalashnikovs.
An indication of how far this agreement is from "disarming and decommissioning Hamas weapons" is that Hamas absolutely insists the weapons must not be removed from Gaza. Why not, if they're not available to Hamas and have been "decommissioned"? What does Hamas have to lose if the weapons it gave up and have been rendered useless are disposed of outside of Gaza?
No doubt if the agreement said all the weapons would be moved out of Gaza entirely, Israel would have jumped to agree.
Unfortunately it’s a bad deal. It asks that everyone believe Hamas will actually disarm afterwords.
The plan requires Hamas to disarm BEFORE Israel leaves, though.
That’s not the information I found from reputable news sources. It’s also still changing.
I would hope Hamas will disarm. Doubtful.
Forget the "news sources".
Go to the origin. This is the Board of Peace proposal that Hamas has agreed to.
Read it for yourself.
https://x.com/BoardOfPeace/status/2082992046449496263