Trump’s ceasefire proposal is not a step toward peace. It is a tactical manoeuvre to provide Israel with diplomatic cover while continuing its military campaign.

Elijah J Magnier, Jul 3, 2025

In a striking shift in diplomacy, the United States has abandoned its traditional role [in these mediation efforts] as a neutral mediator and positioned itself as a de facto proxy for Israel in negotiations with Hamas. Rather than brokering a balanced resolution, Washington is advancing a ceasefire proposal designed primarily to relieve Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of mounting domestic pressure—under the guise of humanitarian concern and the release of Israeli captives.

At the heart of the plan, promoted by former President Donald Trump and his political allies, is a proposed 60-day ceasefire. But this is no sincere effort to bring the war to a close. Rather, it is a calculated pause—crafted to allow Israel time to regroup, consolidate its military and political footing, and resume its offensive with renewed intensity. 

Trump speaks of “halting the battle,” not ending the war—an intentional ambiguity that offers Netanyahu a green light to continue military operations at will. The choice of language is no accident. It enables Israel to maintain the initiative while presenting the plan as a humanitarian gesture to the international community.

The text of the agreement refers to a “general cessation of hostilities” across the Gaza Strip, deliberately omitting any reference to a permanent cessation of war. It is a diplomatic sleight of hand—designed to create the illusion of progress while entrenching the status quo. There is no requirement for a full Israeli withdrawal, nor any binding mechanism to ensure the consistent and unrestricted delivery of humanitarian aid. Instead, the proposal gestures vaguely at limited redeployments and minor improvements in aid distribution.

These concessions fall drastically short of the humanitarian needs on the ground. Gaza’s population requires thousands of aid trucks daily, not symbolic gestures. Palestinians are forced to queue for hours in exposed areas, often under drone surveillance or in the sights of Israeli sharpshooters. Dozens have been killed while waiting for food, with leaked military directives reportedly authorising Israeli forces to fire on civilians at aid distribution points. Human rights groups and UN agencies have condemned these tactics, but little has changed in practice.

This so-called ceasefire is not a step toward peace. It is a tactical manoeuvre—endorsed by Trump and his allies—to provide Israel with diplomatic cover while continuing its military campaign. Cloaked in humanitarian language and presented as a step toward stability, it is in fact a roadmap for prolonged occupation and further devastation.

Never before has a U.S. president aligned so overtly with a foreign leader’s agenda as Trump has with Netanyahu. From the 2017 relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem to the recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and the US participation to the war on Iran to mention only a few, Trump has consistently advanced Israeli hardline interests. His policies have mirrored Netanyahu’s vision of a redefined Middle East, where Palestinian self-determination is treated as an obstacle, not a right. 

Far from acting as an independent head of state, Trump has served as Netanyahu’s international amplifier—echoing his rhetoric, championing his demands, and restructuring U.S. diplomacy to support Israel’s long-term strategic goals. This alignment has come at the cost of U.S. credibility in the region. Arab and European diplomats who once viewed Washington as a key broker now see it as a partisan actor. 

Trump’s threats to Hamas send a clear signal: any ceasefire will be judged by Israeli standards, and its continuation depends on Israel’s own shifting definitions of “compliance.” The outcome is a policy framework where Netanyahu dictates terms and Washington reinforces them.

Netanyahu has made no secret of his intentions. He has repeatedly stated that the war will not end until all Israeli prisoners are returned. Even then, he offers only a limited pause in hostilities. His definition of peace excludes any political concessions to Palestinians or long-term guarantees. It is a doctrine of attrition: apply sustained military pressure, exploit diplomatic lulls, and wait for the opposition to collapse.

This strategy is not theoretical—it is already playing out. In January, a 42-day lull in fighting was made possible by a phased prisoner exchange. But the truce collapsed when Israel unilaterally halted the process. Much of the blame lies with U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff, who initially promoted a staged release plan before shifting to demand the immediate return of all Israeli captives. In doing so, he abandoned the role of mediator and adopted the position of an Israeli government spokesman. This pivot marked a broader collapse of U.S. diplomatic credibility.

By now, Israel’s intentions are clear: recover all prisoners, then resume the offensive. Over 70 percent of Gaza is already under Israeli control. Military orders for mass evacuations continue, driving Palestinians from their homes under threat of bombardment. Critics describe this as a deliberate campaign of forced relocation—a strategy aimed at reengineering Gaza’s demographic and territorial makeup. The humanitarian consequences are staggering: over a million displaced, infrastructure shattered, and basic survival reduced to chance.

Netanyahu’s far-right coalition provides no real prospect for peace. The political makeup of his government—dominated by ultranationalists and hardliners—ensures that any opportunity for a negotiated resolution is viewed with suspicion or outright hostility. For these factions, the war is not just against Hamas but against the very concept of Palestinian sovereignty. Netanyahu has long framed this conflict as a means of settling historical scores. His vision is not one of coexistence but of conquest. He won’t stop now as he is almost achieving his objective to be part of Israel’s history at the expenses of the Palestinian people.

The war in Gaza, then, is part of a broader strategy to eliminate Palestinian claims to land—not just in Gaza but across the West Bank. The rhetoric of “total victory” is not about neutralising a threat; it is about erasing a people’s political future. With U.S. backing, Netanyahu is pressing forward with a vision of permanent Israeli dominance, redrawing the map while the world watches.

Until recently, Netanyahu had been reluctant to call early elections. Beset by legal troubles and political volatility, he feared the risks of an untimely vote. But now, bolstered by what he claims are military successes in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and even Iran, Netanyahu appears newly emboldened. A temporary ceasefire and the return of Israeli prisoners could be spun as a national triumph, giving him the perfect political momentum to call for early elections. Such a move would not mark the end of conflict—it would serve as a launchpad for a renewed mandate and deeper entrenchment of his regional ambitions.

Meanwhile, traditional U.S. allies are expressing concern over Washington’s posture. European diplomats have questioned the wisdom of abandoning neutrality, while Arab nations fear the collapse of regional balance. The broader implications are serious: potential fallout for Saudi-Israeli normalisation efforts, increased polarisation across the Arab world, and a growing perception that diplomacy is dead in the face of military might.

Washington’s complicity in this agenda is no longer subtle. By aligning U.S. foreign policy so closely with Netanyahu’s aims, America has forfeited its standing as an honest broker. It has embraced a framework in which Palestinian lives are collateral damage in a campaign of territorial domination. Far from pursuing peace, Trump and his allies are helping Israel realise a vision of permanent war and demographic engineering.

The cost of this alignment is not just regional instability or humanitarian disaster. It is the erosion of America’s moral authority on the world stage. In transforming U.S. diplomacy into a megaphone for Israeli hardliners, Trump has redefined the American presidency in the Middle East—not as a negotiator, but as an enabler.

And with every passing day, it is the people of Gaza who pay the price.

PUBLISHED BY ELIJAH J MAGNIER

Veteran War Zone Correspondent and Senior Political Risk Analyst with over 35 years’ experience covering the Middle East and acquiring in-depth experience, robust contacts and political knowledge in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Syria. Specialised in terrorism and counter-terrorism, intelligence, political assessments, strategic planning and thorough insight in political networks in the region. Covered on the ground the Israeli invasion to Lebanon (1st war 1982), the Iraq-Iran war, the Lebanese civil war, the Gulf war (1991), the war in the former Yugoslavia (1992-1996), the US invasion to Iraq (2003 to date), the second war in Lebanon (2006), the war in Libya and Syria (2011 to date). Lived for many years in Lebanon, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria. View all posts by Elijah J Magnier