From a historical perspective, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's journey to Washington last week and his gesture-filled meeting with President Donald Trump can be compared to only three previous summits in the history of the special relationship.
Two of these meetings, held in June 1964 and January 1968, were between President Lyndon Johnson and Prime Minister Levi Eshkol. The third, occurring in September 1969, brought together President Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Golda Meir. These three meetings took place against the backdrop of American recognition of Israel as a strategic asset – a pro-American island of stability and strength within a radical arena where most players were supported and operated by the Kremlin. These meetings purely exemplified the "terms of affection" that characterized the relationship between the partners during the 1960s, yielding arms deals and commitments for such arrangements.
Just like those three historic meetings, the Trump-Netanyahu summit signaled a warming of relations following the relative coolness that characterized at least some of the Biden administration officials' approach toward Israel. As for Biden himself: Alongside his initial comprehensive support for Israel and the assistance provided following the October 7 atrocities (and positioning his forces to intercept Iranian missiles), he also did not spare his criticism and withheld crucial armaments during the war in Gaza.
In contrast, the Trump-Netanyahu summit proceeded without background noise or ultimatums. Instead, it transformed into a demonstration of solidarity with Israel and comprehensive military and diplomatic support, while fully backing Netanyahu's determination to dismantle Hamas control in Gaza. While the president's support for releasing all hostages and ending the fighting remained steady, it was overshadowed by his initiative to relocate Gaza residents to other regional countries and his vision for massive reconstruction of the strip, which according to his plan, would be transferred to temporary American control once fighting ceases.
Moreover, unlike the stated position of his aides and advisers in the recent past, this support was not accompanied by a sense of resolute and unequivocal presidential commitment to continue implementing the ceasefire agreement, including its transition to the second phase.
The Witkoff effect
The question arises: What caused this new emphasis in the 47th president's thinking that dramatically shifted his focus and interest during his meeting with the prime minister? It's reasonable to assume this wasn't the result of sophisticated manipulation designed to prompt Saudi Arabia in particular and the moderate Arab camp in general to increase pressure on Hamas to soften its positions, especially regarding its place and status in the aftermath. Trump's "operational code" is characterized primarily by intuitive and spontaneous flashes reflecting his worldview directly, rather than Machiavellian tactics pursuing goals through indirect and sometimes convoluted paths.
In this case, it's clear that the detailed and tangible description of Gaza's destruction, conveyed to the president by his trusted envoy Steve Witkoff, was the factor that led Trump directly to the idea of solving the Palestinian problem, at least in Gaza, through evacuating its residents and transforming the strip into an ambitious rehabilitation and renewal project under Uncle Sam's inspiration, image, and spirit. This can be seen as another distinct expression of what American researcher Stanley Hoffmann defined as the "engineering approach" in managing American foreign policy throughout its history.
Indeed, like many presidents before him (such as John F Kennedy in his approach to Gamal Abdel Nasser's revolutionary Egypt in the early 1960s), Trump views the Middle East, which bubbles with hostility toward the West, through the practical lens of a businessman convinced that every problem has a fair solution and that there exists a universal definition of "rationality." The possibility that revolutionary movements and violent extremism fundamentally contradict notions of development and economic prosperity is foreign to the current president, as it was to many distinguished American leaders in the past. All remained captive to their ethnocentric view of the international arena, not all of which operates according to American concepts and logic.
Against this background, it's difficult to expect Trump's dream of transforming Gaza into an oasis will be translated literally into reality, even in the long term. However, this pessimistic forecast doesn't diminish the summit's definition as a success story, indicating that despite expected obstacles ahead (perhaps even in the short term), a new and promising era was launched in the American capital last Tuesday, set to bring another upgrade to the "special relationship."
