Netanyahu’s Veto and the Limits of American Power

The latest dispute between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu over a proposed framework for resolving the Gaza conflict has exposed the fundamental challenge facing American policymakers in their dealings with Israel. Despite its grand rhetoric about reasserting US power, the Trump administration is struggling to translate words into meaningful action when it comes to one of its closest allies.

At the heart of this problem lies Netanyahu’s pre-emptive veto on the framework. The proposed deal would have required Hamas to disarm in exchange for a gradual Israeli withdrawal. However, by insisting that no such withdrawal can occur until Hamas is “genuinely” disarmed, Netanyahu has rewritten the equation and created a condition that cannot be independently measured or verified.

The deeper question here is not whether Hamas should surrender its weapons but who controls the sequence of events and therefore who controls the transition to peace. Trump’s framework requires some degree of Israeli surrender to an international and Palestinian transitional structure, while Netanyahu’s position gives Israel control over when its military authority ends. This would result in an open-ended Israeli security presence, justified by the language of disarmament.

The confrontation between Trump and Netanyahu is not just about Gaza; it’s also about their fundamentally different definitions of success. For Trump, a diplomatic achievement that bears his name is proof that US power can succeed where conventional diplomacy failed. For Netanyahu, the war in Gaza is inseparable from the definition of Israeli victory, and any arrangement that ends the fighting while leaving Hamas with residual capabilities or transferring meaningful authority to Palestinians and international actors would be seen as an abandonment of the war’s central objectives.

This collision between two men who are allies but not friends raises important questions about the limits of American power. Can a superpower like the United States allow an ally to dictate the terms of its own diplomacy without compromising its own interests? The answer, unfortunately, seems to be yes – at least for now. Netanyahu is counting on the familiar playbook: stall, object, invoke security concerns, mobilize domestic pressure, and wait for the US president to retreat.

The record is difficult to ignore. Washington has repeatedly made appeals, issued warnings, and complained privately about Israeli actions only to accommodate Israeli governments when the political cost of confrontation grew. This pathology – where the US bankrolls an ally that routinely defies US policy while treating private appeals as a substitute for meaningful pressure – is what Trump promised to break.

But Gaza is exposing the gap between rhetorical toughness and actual leverage. Confronting an adversary like Hamas is one thing; confronting Israel is another. Doing so would require challenging not only Netanyahu but the domestic political infrastructure that has historically made sustained pressure on Israeli governments so difficult.

Trump now faces a choice: modify his framework until Netanyahu accepts it, preserving the appearance of diplomatic progress while allowing Israel to continue its intransigence, or take meaningful action to challenge Netanyahu’s position. The stakes are high, not just for Gaza but for the future of American diplomacy and the limits of US power. Will Trump find the courage to follow through on his promises, or will he retreat behind the familiar shield of US passivity?