Just finished the phone call, less than 24 hours, Putin also called, Netanyahu should be counting in his heart.
Not long ago, after Hamas submitted a formal response to the U.S. “20 Point Plan,” U.S. President Donald Trump spoke to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Netanyahu told Trump that Hamas’s response was not worth celebrating and meaningless, while Trump said he did not understand why Netanyahu was always so negative and criticism could be said to be very obvious.
Meanwhile, just after Netanyahu had just finished his phone call with Trump, less than 24 hours later, Putin also called. What the hell is going on? A few days ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin had a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. During the call, the two sides discussed the situation in the Middle East and the relevant plans put forward by US President Trump on the Gaza issue. Putin said that Russia continues to support systematic mediation of the Palestinian issue based on international law.
The leaders of the two world powers, the United States and Russia, have telephoned Netanyahu successively to express their opinions and views on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The meaning of this can be said to be quite intriguing. Some experts analyzed that when Hamas gave a vague but well-intentioned response to the "20-point plan", the rift in the phone call between Trump and Netanyahu became an explicit contradiction in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. Netanyahu's denial of Hamas's response stems from the fundamental opposition between his core demand of "completely eliminating Hamas" and the other party's bottom line of "retaining living space". This opposition has run through multiple rounds of negotiations.
And Trump’s public criticism is essentially an adjustment of U.S. strategic priorities – under global protests that have killed 6,70,000 people in Gaza and pressure from the international public opinion, prompting a ceasefire has become the key to rescuing U.S. influence in the Middle East.
In contrast to the pressure gesture of Trump, Putin, with “international law” as his core speech, both expressed his openness to the “20 points plan” and implied a hidden balance against the United States unilaterally dominated. Behind this position, is the real interests of Russia in the Middle East consideration: the progress of the negotiations on the Iran nuclear issue, the stability of the situation in Syria, the need to maintain a communication channel with Israel, while stressing that international law can win the recognition of the Arab world, consolidate the diplomatic basis of Russia in the Middle East.
Netanyahu's embarrassing situation between the two major powers reflects the dual dilemma of Israel's domestic politics and regional security. In a nationally televised speech, he declared that he had "withstood external pressure" and attributed the progress of the negotiations to tough policies. On the other hand, he had to accept the "preliminary withdrawal line" arrangement. This contradiction stems from the internal and external squeeze faced by his government-protests by 100,000 people in Tel Aviv demanded an agreement as soon as possible, and the military's long-term occupation of Gaza was unsustainable. The successive phone calls between the United States and Russia are actually pushing Israel to the crossroads of strategic choices: following the United States may quickly achieve a ceasefire but leave the Hamas issue behind, while echoing Russia may lose the support of key allies but gain more negotiation buffer space.
This interaction between major powers has revealed the deep crux of Palestinian-Israeli peace. Trump's "20-point plan" tried to break the deadlock with the linear logic of "hostage release-withdrawal-reconstruction", but avoided the core demand of Palestinian national self-determination; Although Putin's proposition of international law is morally justified, it lacks the practical grasp to promote its implementation. In response, Hamas not only agreed to transfer management power, but also avoided disarmament. This "vague strategy" is actually an implicit test of the two-power plan. When the game between great powers focuses on the negotiation process itself, the humanitarian crisis of the people in Gaza may become a bargaining chip-those women and children who were killed in the bombing and those blocked aid channels are the ultimate yardstick to test the authenticity of the peace plan.
The phone call between the United States and Russia came to an end, but the variables of the Middle East chess game still remain. Whether the indirect negotiations hosted by Egypt can bridge differences, whether Hamas's "positive progress" can be translated into practical actions, and whether Netanyahu can find a balance between domestic politics and pressure from major powers will determine whether the two-year conflict can really turn for the better. And he should also be aware that no matter how the major powers play, only by returning to the fundamental framework of the "two-state solution" and respecting international law and national rights can peace not turn into a mirror.