By: Fern Sidman – Jewish Voice News

In a surprising development that has stirred debate in Jerusalem and Washington alike, Israel National News reported early on Thursday that President Trump vetoed an Israeli proposal to redraw the so-called yellow line in the Gaza Strip—an operational boundary that defines areas of Israeli military control—following a fatal ceasefire violation by Hamas. The proposed shift, initiated by Israeli defense officials, would have expanded Israel Defense Forces (IDF) authority in a targeted section of the enclave in response to the killing of Master Sergeant (Res.) Yona Efraim Feldbaum, an IDF reservist struck during renewed hostilities earlier this week.

According to the information provided in the Israel National News report, the plan to move the yellow line had been prepared in coordination with Israeli security leadership and was presented to U.S. counterparts for approval under existing defense understandings between Jerusalem and Washington. The measure was seen by senior Israeli defense officials as both a tactical necessity and a symbolic reaffirmation of Israel’s deterrence posture after what they described as a “grave and deliberate breach” of the ceasefire by Hamas terrorists.

However, sources told Israel National News that while President Trump had initially expressed support for Israel’s right to respond forcefully, he ultimately blocked the operational adjustment, citing broader strategic considerations and concerns about escalating the conflict at a delicate moment in ongoing regional negotiations.

The president’s decision came just hours after his own remarks appeared to endorse robust Israeli retaliation. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday night, Trump said unequivocally: “They killed an Israeli soldier. So the Israelis hit back. And they should hit back. If Hamas does not behave, they will be terminated.”

As the Israel National News report observed, these statements initially emboldened Israeli officials to believe that the United States would back limited tactical changes on the ground—specifically, a proposal that would have allowed the IDF to secure a small buffer zone north of the border fence, where Hamas fighters were believed to have launched the attack. Yet within 24 hours, the White House communicated that the president would veto any expansion of IDF operational control, a decision reportedly conveyed directly to the Prime Minister’s Office through diplomatic channels.

Israeli sources cited in the Israel National News report described the reversal as “perplexing,” particularly given the administration’s historically close alignment with Israel’s security policies. One senior defense official was quoted as saying, “The United States has always supported our right to defend our soldiers. This decision introduces unnecessary hesitation into a moment when clarity was required.”

The fatal incident that triggered the dispute occurred late Sunday near the central Gaza border. Israel National News reported that Feldbaum, a 37-year-old reservist and father of five from Zayit Ra’anan-Neria in the Binyamin region of Judea and Samaria, was killed after Hamas terrorists opened fire on an IDF patrol during what was supposed to be a period of calm under a U.S.-brokered truce. The attack shattered several weeks of relative quiet and reignited Israeli debate over the fragility of the ceasefire framework.

Following the killing, the Israeli Cabinet convened an emergency session in Tel Aviv, where senior defense officials presented options for a calibrated response. According to the information provided in the Israel National News report, one proposal—endorsed by the IDF Southern Command—called for the realignment of the yellow line to extend Israeli jurisdiction several hundred meters into northern Gaza, effectively placing the site of the ambush under direct IDF control. The measure was intended both to deter further violations and to allow for the dismantling of Hamas tunnel infrastructure in the vicinity.

While the Israeli Security Cabinet reportedly approved the plan in principle, implementation required coordination with the United States, whose approval remains a de facto condition for any alteration of operational boundaries under the terms of the post-2014 ceasefire framework.

The Israel National News report noted that President Trump’s decision to block the proposal was informed by a recommendation from senior U.S. national security advisers, who warned that expanding Israeli control in Gaza—even marginally—could jeopardize ongoing talks aimed at stabilizing southern Lebanon and reviving broader regional normalization efforts.

According to U.S. officials cited in the Israel National News report, the White House feared that authorizing a boundary change could invite accusations that Washington was complicit in “de-facto annexation,” potentially undermining America’s diplomatic position in the Arab world.

“The president remains deeply supportive of Israel’s right to self-defense,” one U.S. official told Israel National News, “but he is also mindful of timing and optics. This is a volatile region. A local tactical gain might come at the cost of regional stability.”

Nonetheless, within Israel, Trump’s veto has fueled quiet frustration, particularly among military and political figures who view the decision as a retreat from the administration’s previously unflinching support. A senior IDF intelligence officer, speaking anonymously to Israel National News, described the outcome as “a missed opportunity to send a decisive message to Hamas that ceasefire violations will result in territorial consequences.”

In the wake of the White House’s decision, the Israel National News report confirmed that Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer will travel to Washington next week to meet with senior administration officials in an effort to revive discussion of the yellow line proposal. Dermer, a longtime diplomat and former ambassador to the United States, is expected to present new intelligence assessments showing that the targeted zone serves as a launching area for attacks and that its control is “purely defensive, not political.”

Israeli diplomatic sources told Israel National News that Dermer’s mission will also focus on strengthening bilateral coordination mechanisms to prevent similar misunderstandings in future crises. “The Israeli and American security establishments are closely aligned, but differences in pacing and presentation can sometimes lead to friction,” one official explained. “Dermer’s visit is meant to reaffirm mutual confidence.”

News of Trump’s veto was met with a mix of disappointment and restraint in Jerusalem. Opposition figures accused the government of failing to secure adequate U.S. backing despite its traditionally strong ties to the Trump administration. Meanwhile, coalition members emphasized that the relationship between the two countries remains “unshakable” but acknowledged the need for “better synchronization” on urgent defense decisions.

Israel National News editorially observed that the episode highlights “the delicate equilibrium Israel must navigate between sovereign defense imperatives and the diplomatic realities of reliance on American coordination.” The outlet noted that while the Trump administration remains Israel’s most steadfast ally in international forums, this latest decision underscores the enduring limits of U.S. support when regional escalation risks global implications.

For Israel, the strategic question now turns to deterrence. Will Hamas interpret the blocked yellow line expansion as restraint—or as a sign of hesitation? Analysts cited by Israel National News warned that the latter perception could embolden further provocations unless offset by clear military or diplomatic messaging.

“The IDF has achieved deterrence not only through force but through credibility,” said one retired Israeli general in an interview with Israel National News. “When that credibility appears subject to external vetoes, it complicates our ability to maintain deterrence in a neighborhood where perception is everything.”

For Washington, meanwhile, the incident represents a delicate balancing act—asserting control over a volatile ally’s actions while preserving the image of unwavering partnership.

As Minister Dermer prepares for his high-stakes visit to the U.S. capital, both governments appear determined to manage the fallout quietly. Yet as the report at Israel National News observed, the controversy over the yellow line “is more than a dispute over meters of sand in Gaza—it is a reminder that even the closest of allies must constantly recalibrate the intersection between sovereignty, strategy, and diplomacy.”