What Has Israel Really Gained from Trump’s Ceasefire Gamble?

Posted on by Elijah J Magnier

By Elijah J. Magnier –

When President Donald Trump unveiled a sweeping 20-point plan to end the war in Gaza, Israel’s leadership moved quickly to back the proposal. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly aligned with the framework, claiming it addressed most of his strategic objectives. But what has Israel actually gained from this ceasefire maneuver? And what lies beneath the surface?

Even as Israel affirms its commitment to the deal, airstrikes and artillery fire continue in Gaza. The intensity has lessened, but dozens of civilians are still killed daily. Final terms of the agreement are still under negotiation in Cairo, where mediators including Egypt, Qatar, and the U.S. are struggling to align interpretations. What has emerged so far suggests that Israel’s gains are largely political and strategic, rather than humanitarian.

A Ceasefire Built to Serve Power

Trump has positioned himself as the deal’s guarantor, bending the framework to meet Israeli demands. Netanyahu welcomed this: a U.S. president ready to carry the diplomatic burden and mute international condemnation. With Trump at the helm, Israel gains legitimacy for its actions in Gaza and a partner who speaks its language of “security first.”

This U.S.-Israeli alignment allows Netanyahu to claim domestically that Israel chose diplomacy on its own terms, not under pressure. Internationally, it allows Israel to portray itself as a constructive actor in a U.S.-led peace effort, rather than a rogue aggressor.

Subscribe to get access

Read more of this content when you subscribe today.

Subscribe
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements

Published by Elijah J Magnier

Elijah J. Magnier is a veteran war correspondent and analyst specialising in military affairs, intelligence, strategic affairs and political risk. He has spent nearly four decades living and reporting inside countries at war, often from the front lines, while developing long-standing access to political leaders, military and intelligence officials, diplomats, armed non-state actors and communities directly affected by conflict. His field experience includes the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the Iran–Iraq War, the Lebanese Civil War, the 1991 Gulf War, the wars in the former Yugoslavia, conflict in Sudan, the war in Afghanistan and Yemen, the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, the 2006 Lebanon War, and the wars in Libya and Syria. He has lived for extended periods in Lebanon, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria, allowing him to follow conflicts, political transformations and regional networks beyond the limitations of short-term war reporting. His work focuses on warfare and deterrence, terrorism and counterterrorism, intelligence, political violence, armed non-state actors, regional security and the relationship between military power and political outcomes. He has also served as an adviser to the European Parliament’s Rapporteur on Iraq and Lebanon. Magnier holds a PhD in Policing and Criminal Justice from Liverpool John Moores University and an MSc in Counterterrorism Studies from the University of London. He has undertaken advanced studies in terrorism—including terrorist ideologies, financing and counterterrorism—at the University of St Andrews; terrorism and counterterrorism at Leiden University; and negotiation, including international and cross-cultural negotiation, at ESSEC Business School in Paris. His work combines sustained field access with academic analysis of war, sovereignty, deterrence and political violence.