By: Ariella Haviv

In the wake of a consequential U.S. strike on Iranian military infrastructure, a late-night phone call between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Donald Trump has laid the groundwork for what could be a dramatic reshaping of the Middle East’s political architecture. According to a report in Israel Hayom and corroborated by The Times of Israel, the call, described by sources as “euphoric,” unveiled an ambitious plan to end the war in Gaza within two weeks, restructure its governance, and expand the Abraham Accords with the addition of new Arab states.

This quiet but powerful convergence of Israeli and American diplomatic aims has raised eyebrows across capitals—from Riyadh and Cairo to Washington and Ramallah—as it signals a possible denouement to the brutal Gaza conflict, while repositioning Israel’s regional alliances.

According to the information provided in the Israel Hayom report which cited a senior source familiar with the conversation, Netanyahu and Trump agreed that the ongoing war in Gaza—triggered by Hamas’s October 7 attacks and Israel’s sweeping military response—should conclude within two weeks. The endgame, as discussed on the call, includes the removal of Hamas from power, the exile of its leadership, and the complete release of all hostages held in the Strip.

Crucially, the proposed postwar framework would place governance of Gaza in the hands of a coalition of moderate Arab states—specifically the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and two other unnamed nations—effectively sidelining both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA). The Times of Israel reported that this model reflects Netanyahu’s long-standing resistance to any PA role in postwar Gaza, a position that continues to face significant pushback from Washington’s Arab partners.

As The Times of Israel report pointed out, Arab states have consistently stated they will not assume responsibility for Gaza’s reconstruction unless there is a meaningful political process toward Palestinian statehood—specifically one involving the PA. This conditionality has placed Netanyahu at odds with traditional partners in the region, who are increasingly impatient with the status quo.

The Netanyahu-Trump call went beyond Gaza. As The Times of Israel report emphasized, the broader goal is nothing less than a regional diplomatic renaissance under the banner of the Abraham Accords. According to the report in Israel Hayom, the agreement envisions formal normalization of relations between Israel and both Saudi Arabia and Syria—two countries that, until now, have either maintained icy detachment or outright hostility toward the Jewish state.

Should this materialize, it would mark a tectonic shift in regional geopolitics. Saudi-Israeli normalization has long been a strategic prize for both Jerusalem and Washington. Syrian recognition, though more speculative given the Assad regime’s ties with Iran, would signal a remarkable recalibration of Levantine power structures.

As part of this normalization wave, other Muslim-majority nations are expected to follow suit, deepening the Abraham Accords’ reach and impact. The Times of Israel report said that this prospective wave of normalization hinges on a calibrated message from Israel: a conditional endorsement of a two-state solution—provided the Palestinian Authority undergoes significant reforms.

In what appears to be a key diplomatic quid pro quo, Israel would signal support for a future Palestinian state, while the United States, under a future Trump administration, would recognize Israeli sovereignty over parts of Judea and Samaria. This dual-track approach—reformulated under Netanyahu’s and Trump’s vision—resurrects the contentious annexation debate while appeasing both right-wing Israeli factions and moderate Arab capitals.

The Times of Israel report noted that this element of the plan aligns with prior Trump administration policies, particularly the 2020 “Peace to Prosperity” proposal, which envisioned limited Palestinian autonomy under strict security guarantees and territorial concessions to Israel.

Despite the heady optimism from Netanyahu and Trump, significant hurdles remain. Hamas’s leadership, which continues to wield influence in parts of southern and central Gaza, has historically rejected calls for exile. Furthermore, while the return of hostages remains a top priority for Israel, there is little indication that such a release is imminent, particularly given the fractured nature of negotiations since the collapse of previous ceasefire arrangements.

The Times of Israel report highlighted that past efforts to exile Hamas leadership—reminiscent of Yasser Arafat’s Lebanon evacuation in 1982—have failed in the face of ideological rigidity and logistical obstacles. Whether this time proves different will depend heavily on Arab mediation and internal Hamas calculations.

The potential fragility of the arrangement was underscored by Trump’s public outburst earlier this week. As reported by The Times of Israel, Trump was enraged by Israeli threats to retaliate against Iran’s ceasefire violations. In a Truth Social post, he called on Netanyahu to end his criminal trial—a rare and incendiary demand by an American political leader against the judiciary of an allied nation.

Analysts see Trump’s rhetoric as part of a larger effort to align Netanyahu with a strategic timetable that favors calm in Gaza, an expanding circle of normalization, and a reconfigured U.S.-Israeli relationship—possibly in anticipation of the 2024 presidential election’s foreign policy narrative.

While the full contours of the Netanyahu-Trump plan remain speculative, its core architecture—removing Hamas, restructuring Gaza governance, expanding regional normalization, and redefining the Palestinian question—reflects an audacious if risky diplomatic calculus.

The Times of Israel has repeatedly emphasized that the success of such a plan would depend on the credibility of guarantees made to Arab states, the enforceability of Hamas’s exile, and the internal cohesion of the Israeli government, which is already under strain from competing domestic pressures.

Moreover, the plan’s viability rests on a coordinated international response, especially from key stakeholders such as the EU and Egypt, both of which have remained wary of sidelining the PA and sanctioning long-term Israeli control over contested territories.

If Netanyahu and Trump succeed in translating Monday night’s “euphoric” call into actionable diplomacy, they could alter the Middle East’s landscape for a generation. Yet the road ahead is perilous. Without buy-in from Arab states, clarity from Hamas, and commitment from a fractured Israeli public, this plan risks becoming yet another chapter in the region’s long chronicle of unfulfilled peace. (Additional reporting by Fern Sidman)