INTERVIEW-Gaza War Serves Netanyahu's Political Interests: Dr. Hesham Alghannam (2-2)

Leaders

19-05-2025

A three-phase ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel in Gaza collapsed on March 18, 2025, after negotiations to move forward with the second phase stalled.
Since then, Israel has resumed its air and ground operations in Gaza, killing hundreds of Palestinians and displacing others. Israel has intensified its military campaign in the Strip, vowing to seize large parts of Gaza to pressure Hamas to release hostages and disarm. Moreover, the Israeli government imposed a blockade on the delivery of food, fuel and humanitarian aid, leaving Gaza's population in dire humanitarian conditions.
The war in Gaza broke out after Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, which killed 1,200 people and took 251 hostages. The Gaza war has so far claimed the lives of more than 53,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, according to Gaza's Health Ministry.
Negotiations have been taking place between Hamas and Israel, with the mediation of Egypt, Qatar and the US, with several proposals made to restore the ceasefire, release the remaining hostages and end the war. Meanwhile, the US President, Donald Trump, has repeatedly proposed that the US takes control of Gaza, relocating its population elsewhere and transforming it into a 'Riviera of the Middle East.'
In this part of this exclusive interview with Leaders MENA Magazine, Dr. Hesham Alghannam shares his perspectives on the recent developments in Gaza after the ceasefire collapse, the goal of the current Israeli operations in the Strip, and Trump's calculations regarding Gaza.
Dr. Alghannam is a Saudi researcher and geopolitical expert with over 23 years of experience in consulting and research in politics and international relations. His research focuses on policy and strategy in Saudi Arabia and abroad.
He is also is the Director of the Security Research Center and General Supervisor of National Security and Counter-Terrorism Programs at Naif Arab University for Security Sciences.
Moreover, Dr. Alghannam is a fellow researcher and strategy consultant at various European, American and British think-tanks. He is a nonresident scholar at the Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center. He has worked with the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, and the Gulf Research Centre. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Exeter. Gaza Ceasefire
Q: In your opinion, who is responsible for the collapse of the ceasefire agreement in Gaza?
The collapse of the Gaza ceasefire agreement was neither accidental nor surprising, but rather the inevitable outcome of a process intentionally designed to fail from the outset. The agreement signed on January 15 outlined a clear roadmap, starting with a temporary ceasefire, followed by a phased Israeli withdrawal, and ultimately culminating in a permanent solution ensuring Gaza's reconstruction and transfer to civilian administration under international supervision, in exchange for the release of all prisoners and hostages.
From the very first stage, which aimed at de-escalation, limited prisoner exchange, and opening crossings to allow humanitarian aid, Hamas demonstrated clear commitment despite considerable pressure. Hamas released hostages, returned bodies of soldiers, and swiftly responded to any accusations of violations. Conversely, from the outset, Israel deliberately undermined the foundations of the agreement. It failed to send any delegation to negotiate the second phase, even after the deadline had expired, refused to discuss its details, and instead promoted an alternative proposal, known as the Vitkov Plan, aiming to freeze the existing situation without conducting any actual withdrawal.
The second phase of the agreement, crucial to future stability in Gaza, involved complete withdrawal from the Strip in return for the release of all hostages. However, Israel deliberately sabotaged this phase by refusing to withdraw from the Philadelphi corridor despite explicit stipulation, and maintained control over the Netzarim corridor, withdrawing later only for private reasons unrelated to agreement obligations. Furthermore, Israel failed to retreat to the agreed-upon contact lines east of Gaza, and did not transfer control of the Rafah crossing to Egyptian authorities as promised.
On the humanitarian level, the agreement clearly allowed the entry of 600 aid trucks daily, 60,000 caravans, and 200,000 tents. Yet, Israel permitted entry of less than a tenth of these quantities and blocked entry of trailers and bulldozers under flimsy security pretexts. In March, Israel halted all aid deliveries entirely and completely cut off electricity, leading to the deaths of children from cold and thirst.
Regarding the prisoners' issue, Israel repeatedly violated its commitments, consistently demanding Hamas release hostages first, while delaying Palestinian prisoners' releases for hours, and sometimes days, even punishing Palestinians for organizing welcoming ceremonies that did not breach any agreement conditions.
This series of Israeli violations illustrates the lack of political will from Benjamin Netanyahu's government to achieve a lasting solution. What occurred was not merely direct rejection, but a systematic process of evasion and political and humanitarian blackmail, gradually leading to the complete collapse of the agreement.
Matters did not end there. Recently, Netanyahu's official spokesman, Omer Dostri, exposed his prime minister's true intentions regarding abandoning the Israeli hostages. Dostri stated explicitly that 'it is impossible to return all hostages in a single deal,' and noted Hamas's demands for ending the war and Israel's exit from Gaza, making a comprehensive agreement unacceptable from Israel's perspective. These statements, reflecting Netanyahu's mindset, demonstrate how far the Israeli government is willing to sacrifice its own sons and daughters for narrow political interests.
Furthermore, Netanyahu himself, in recorded statements, unequivocally rejected Hamas's terms, including ending the war, the movement's continuation in power, and Israel's complete withdrawal from Gaza. He justified his stance by stating that accepting these conditions would send a message that Israel could be subdued. Israel's Military Campaign
Q: Do you think that the current Israeli military operations in Gaza seek to create a new geographic reality that forces displacement?
Any profound observer of Israel's current war on Gaza is compelled to acknowledge that this war was not initiated to achieve clear military objectives or fulfill pressing security needs. Instead, it increasingly appears as a means to reshape the sector's geography and demographics, paving the way for widespread forced displacement. Essentially, this war directly serves the political and coalition interests of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, rather than Israel's higher interests or national security, contrary to the official narrative.
From the outset, Israeli rhetoric promised total and decisive victory, but it gradually retreated into vague phrases like 'negotiations under fire,' clearly indicating diminishing confidence in the ability for swift military resolution. This represents a shift toward managing a prolonged crisis, contradicting Israel's traditional security doctrine, which favors swift wars with specific and clear objectives.
Yet the reality on the ground narrates a more tragic and complex story. Israel extensively destroyed Gaza's civilian infrastructure—including hospitals, power stations, schools, and oxygen facilities—without clear operational justification. Israeli authorities also blocked entry of most humanitarian aid, including caravans and tents, leaving over a million Palestinians homeless under conditions leading to children dying from severe cold and thirst.
Additionally, Israel established the strategic Netzarim corridor, effectively dividing the northern and southern parts of the Gaza Strip, and retained control over the Philadelphi axis, blatantly violating the terms of the ceasefire agreement signed in January 2025. These actions clearly reflect Israel's intentions to manage Gaza's geography in a way that prevents any return to normal life.
This situation is not merely field operations but rather a systematic policy that has ignited sharp internal divisions within Israeli society itself. The military establishment witnessed a wave of protests led initially by reserve pilots and subsequently joined by soldiers from armored and naval units, asserting that continuation of the war serves Netanyahu's political interests rather than Israel's strategic goals. In this context, retired General Dan Halutz notably criticized the war as a continuation of internal politics by military means. Similarly, thousands of Israeli doctors, academics, and intellectuals signed a petition condemning the war as a deceptive operation aimed primarily at preserving the ruling coalition rather than retrieving hostages.
Security analyst Ronen Bergman also revealed facts confirming that a number of Israeli captives died due to Israeli military actions, clearly disregarding intelligence reports. A stark example occurred in August 2024 in the Tal Al-Sultan area, where six captives inside a tunnel were killed by bombing, despite prior intelligence confirming their presence.
Within the Israeli Shin Bet security agency itself, disagreements have significantly intensified. Israeli society harshly criticizes what it perceives as extremist religious currents infiltrating security agencies, and Shin Bet's silence on this matter—supposedly to preserve 'state secrets'—is considered a serious internal threat to Israeli democracy.
This contradictory approach—between the army viewing the operation as leverage for a prisoner-release deal and ending the war, and Netanyahu's vision aspiring to permanent occupation of Gaza—makes the situation extremely complex and dangerous. Netanyahu himself affirmed his intention to transform Gaza's landscape 'forever,' meaning a full occupation followed by widespread displacement and renewed settlement activities—a project clearly not aimed at achieving Israel's security but rather ensuring his political survival.
Furthermore, daily reports issued by the Israeli army about 'neutralizing terrorists' and destroying 'terrorist infrastructure' starkly contradict international humanitarian reports coming from Gaza, exposing immense destruction and killings involving innocent civilians, including children, women, and international aid workers. These accounts raise genuine questions about the credibility of official Israeli statements and provoke serious concerns about systematic war crimes that cannot be ignored or concealed.
All these facts clearly confirm that what is happening today in Gaza is not merely a deviation from traditional policies but a fundamental shift in the nature of war objectives—from security to control, from deterrence to displacement, and from defending the state to safeguarding Netanyahu's personal and political interests. Continuation of the war in this manner threatens not only Gaza's future and its residents but also exposes Israel itself to deep internal divisions and ethical and political crises that cannot easily be overcome. Trump's Position on Gaza
Q: Hours before meeting Netanyahu, Trump had a joint phone call with the leaders of France, Egypt and Jordan, who urged for an immediate return to ceasefire in Gaza, and expressed their strong rejection of Palestinian displacement and their support for an empowered PA governance for all Palestinian territory. However, after meeting Netanyahu, he spoke about a new ceasefire agreement and again floated the idea of relocating Gaza's population. How do you see Trump's actions in this regard?
The recent actions of U.S. President Donald Trump regarding the Gaza issue clearly illustrate how personal political considerations and immediate interests can override established national security standards, strategic principles, and long-term international alliances. Prior to his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump appeared aligned with a coherent international and regional stance shared by his European and Arab allies. During a joint phone call with the leaders of France, Egypt, and Jordan, Trump listened to clear demands for an immediate return to the Gaza ceasefire, unequivocal rejection of any attempts to displace Palestinians, and explicit support for establishing effective Palestinian governance with full authority and sovereignty over all occupied territories. This strengthened Washington's position as an acceptable and balanced mediator in the crisis.
However, what happened after Trump's meeting with Netanyahu represents a sudden and radical shift, as the American president once again floated the dangerous idea of 'relocating Gaza's population,' in exchange for direct U.S. administration of the territory. This sudden reversal reveals the complexity and interwoven political calculations behind Trump's management of the crisis, clearly highlighting three interconnected levels of reasoning underlying this serious shift.
The first level relates to Trump's personal and political considerations. He fully understands that a significant segment of his electoral base, particularly among the evangelical right-wing, views support for the Israeli right not merely as a political stance but as a non-negotiable ideological commitment. Thus, demonstrating such strong backing for Netanyahu—even at the expense of relations with Arab and European allies—yields clear electoral benefits for Trump domestically. It reinforces his image as a strong leader making decisive moves to protect Israel, enabling him to market this step domestically as part of a 'grand deal' aimed at ending the conflict and reshaping the entire region.
The second level concerns the direct relationship between Trump and Netanyahu. The Israeli prime minister is experiencing an acute internal crisis due to corruption investigations, declining popularity, and mounting protests among reserve soldiers. Consequently, raising the idea of mass Palestinian displacement provides Netanyahu with an effective tool to rally his right-wing base and divert attention from repeated military failures. By meeting Trump, Netanyahu successfully secured clear political endorsement that he can promote domestically as either full U.S. support or at least implicit acceptance of this extreme right-wing plan, even if it's merely a political trial balloon.
The third and most serious level involves the implications of this move for American national security itself. Trump's positions severely weaken the credibility of the United States among strategic allies such as France, Egypt, and Jordan, who view mass Palestinian displacement as a direct existential threat. Egypt and Jordan fully recognize that any displacement would inevitably exacerbate their economic crises and create profound demographic imbalances, directly threatening the stability of both regimes. Moreover, advocating population displacement blatantly violates international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the United Nations Charter. This exposes the United States and Israel to international accountability for crimes against humanity and provides significant propaganda leverage to Washington's adversaries (Russia, China, and Iran) to undermine America's role as a leader of a rules-based international order.
Practically, implementing such an idea is nearly impossible. Egypt and Jordan would categorically reject such a project, and no sufficient financial resources or logistical capabilities exist to execute it. Additionally, no occupying force, regardless of its capabilities, can manage a completely devastated and depopulated territory without descending into endless insurgencies.
From the perspective of U.S. national security, the optimal scenario involves achieving a sustainable ceasefire, ensuring that Gaza's population remains in place under international supervision with robust security arrangements, followed by genuine reconstruction efforts and restoring Palestinian governance to the forefront. In contrast, mass displacement will inevitably ignite further regional instability, exposing U.S. forces and vital interests in the Middle East to continuous retaliatory attacks.
Ultimately, Trump's actions in this instance not only represent a clear manifestation of short-sighted policies but also underscore the profound dangers of prioritizing electoral and personal political interests over long-term strategic objectives. This risks transforming a limited, manageable crisis into a deep strategic crisis, placing the United States and its allies in an unenviable international and regional position.
Related Topics:
INTERVIEW – US-Iran Deal Likely, Military Action Could Trigger Global Shock: Dr. Alghannam (1-2)
Short link :
Post Views: 16