By: Abe Wertenheim

Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, one of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s closest advisers and a seasoned veteran of U.S.-Israel diplomacy, played a pivotal role in a high-level White House meeting this week convened by President Donald Trump to discuss post-war governance plans for Gaza. The meeting, first reported by Axios and subsequently highlighted in a detailed report that appeared on Friday at Israel National News (INN), shed light on Israel’s effort to shape the emerging debate in Washington about the future of the Strip once Hamas is defeated militarily.

According to sources familiar with the discussions, Dermer made clear to the group—which included senior figures such as Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff—that Israel has no intention of permanently occupying Gaza, nor of expelling its Palestinian Arab population.

These comments, noted in the INN report, were particularly significant given that some members of Netanyahu’s governing coalition have publicly advocated for such measures. Dermer’s intervention was designed to clarify Israel’s official position: Jerusalem seeks neither annexation nor demographic engineering, but rather a viable alternative to Hamas capable of governing the territory in a stable and non-hostile manner.

“Dermer’s message was: As long as our conditions are met, we will be flexible about everything else,” one source told Axios. This emphasis on flexibility, reported also by INN, reflects a tactical shift. While Israel insists on unyielding red lines regarding security—chiefly that Gaza cannot revert to being a launchpad for rockets, tunnels, and terror infiltrations—it remains open to international proposals about who or what replaces Hamas in governance.

Dermer’s remarks also align with Netanyahu’s repeated assurances to foreign leaders that Israel does not seek a permanent military footprint in Gaza, even as the IDF continues its extensive operations in Gaza City and Khan Yunis. Instead, the government is intent on neutralizing Hamas’s military infrastructure while simultaneously paving the way for a transitional authority that meets Israel’s security imperatives.

The meeting itself was emblematic of Trump’s hands-on approach to shaping what comes after the war. According to the information provided in the INN report, Dermer was in Washington to present both Secretary of State Marco Rubio and envoy Steve Witkoff with Israel’s operational plan for securing Gaza City while orchestrating a “humanitarian surge”—a coordinated effort to deliver food, medicine, and essential supplies during the ongoing conflict.

Toward the end of the White House session, Trump personally asked for Dermer’s input on Israel’s “day after” needs, wanting clarity on what would enable Israel to exit Gaza without leaving a security vacuum.

For Trump, the challenge is twofold: ensuring that Israel’s red lines are met, while also persuading allies and international partners that Gaza’s reconstruction can proceed under a governance structure that will attract investment and avoid renewed instability.

As the report at INN observed, Kushner and Blair—both of whom have long histories of involvement in Middle Eastern diplomacy—used the meeting to present their vision for Gaza’s future. Their plan is still in an early conceptual stage but aims to combine governance reform with economic revitalization.

“They tried to give an idea of how Gaza could be governed and how you create an environment for investment so that reconstruction can happen,” one source explained. “The goal was to run the ideas by Trump to see if he likes them and wants to move forward, so that Witkoff and Rubio can use them.”

Trump, according to the sources cited in the INN report, gave his blessing for Kushner and Blair to continue refining the proposal, though no binding decisions emerged from the meeting. The lack of clarity over who would govern Gaza—and who would secure it—remains the central challenge.

For all the talk of reconstruction corridors and international investment, the heart of the dilemma is political: what governing body can replace Hamas in Gaza, and how will its security be guaranteed?

As the INN report emphasized, Hamas cannot be allowed to retain even a residual hold on power, given its October 7 massacre in southern Israel and its ongoing role as an Iranian proxy. At the same time, alternatives are scarce. The Palestinian Authority, weakened and deeply unpopular, is distrusted by both Israel and many Gazans. International peacekeeping missions are viewed skeptically by Israeli officials who fear they lack resolve. And Arab states, while sympathetic to stabilizing Gaza, remain reluctant to assume direct responsibility.

This impasse was reflected in the White House meeting. While Kushner and Blair spoke in general terms about establishing conditions for governance and investment, neither offered a concrete model for who would actually run Gaza’s ministries, police its streets, or ensure it remains demilitarized.

“The goal,” said one source, “is for the U.S. to lead the effort to find an internationally accepted governance structure in Gaza that will allow Israel to pull out without deteriorating back to the old reality again from a security standpoint.”

Dermer’s presence was significant not only for the content of his message but also for his stature in Washington. As former Israeli ambassador to the United States and one of Netanyahu’s most trusted confidants, Dermer has cultivated deep relationships across the American political spectrum.

As the INN report noted, his involvement provides assurance that Israel’s top leadership is aligned on core objectives: preventing Hamas’s resurgence, avoiding permanent occupation, and working with the U.S. to design a sustainable exit strategy. His careful phrasing—stressing both flexibility and firmness—was likely designed to reassure Washington while also signaling to the Israeli public that Jerusalem remains firmly in charge of its destiny.

The meeting also reveals the contours of U.S.-Israel relations under Trump’s second term. While the Biden administration had often clashed with Netanyahu over Gaza policy, Trump has so far shown greater willingness to defer to Israeli red lines. At the same time, as the INN report observed, Trump is keen to place the U.S. at the center of shaping Gaza’s reconstruction, leveraging figures like Kushner and Blair to craft a plan that could win regional and international buy-in.

For Israel, this presents both an opportunity and a risk. On one hand, U.S. leadership could help secure funding, legitimacy, and diplomatic cover for a post-Hamas Gaza. On the other, Israeli officials must ensure that Washington’s vision does not compromise Israel’s security imperatives or saddle it with unworkable arrangements.

A notable element of Dermer’s presentation was the concept of a “humanitarian surge” in tandem with military operations, as was reported by INN.  By delivering aid even as the IDF dismantles Hamas’s infrastructure, Israel hopes to undermine Hamas’s narrative, build goodwill among Gaza’s civilian population, and demonstrate that Israel’s quarrel is with terrorists, not ordinary Palestinians.

This approach is also designed to reassure international actors that Israel is not indifferent to humanitarian concerns, even as it insists that Hamas bears ultimate responsibility for the suffering in Gaza.

The White House meeting highlighted both the urgency and the complexity of planning for Gaza’s future. Dermer’s intervention ensured that Israel’s voice was front and center: no permanent occupation, no expulsion, but absolute insistence on a viable alternative to Hamas.

For now, the puzzle remains unsolved. Kushner and Blair are still refining their ideas. Trump has signaled his support but withheld definitive judgment. And Israel, represented by Dermer, continues to balance military operations on the ground with diplomatic maneuvering in Washington.

As the INN report emphasized, the stakes are immense. The “day after” in Gaza will shape not only Israel’s security but also the regional balance of power, the trajectory of U.S.-Israel relations, and the international community’s ability to confront jihadist movements.

What remains clear is that Israel, with Dermer at the helm of its strategic messaging, is determined to influence the outcome at every stage. The challenge now is whether a governance model can be found that satisfies all parties and prevents Gaza from slipping back into the cycle of terror and war that has defined its recent history.