US President Donald Trump posted Thursday evening on his Truth Social platform demanding Netanyahu's trial be terminated immediately. His intervention comes as the trial will resume Monday.

"I was shocked to hear that the State of Israel, which has just had one of its Greatest Moments in History, and is strongly led by Bibi Netanyahu, is continuing its ridiculous Witch Hunt against their Great War Time Prime Minister!" Trump declared.

Attorney Marc Zell, Chairman of Republicans Overseas Israel, warned against such intervention despite supporting Netanyahu. Zell stated, "Israel is a sovereign country. Its judicial system, for all its flaws, is solely its own responsibility. While the President of the United States is entitled to express his opinion, he must not interfere in ongoing legal proceedings in Israel. Doing so could set a very dangerous precedent. Likewise, Israel should not interfere in judicial processes taking place in the United States."

The post Trump may ask Israeli president to cancel Netanyahu trial appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Their working assumption, still in place, is that the plans they have developed will never need to be executed and will remain permanently shelved. Still, the team did its work and compiled materials. If these ever see the light of day, it will mean Netanyahu has concluded that relations with Trump are beyond repair, and that a new strategy is required.

The initial assumption was that such a scenario was highly unlikely. But a secondary assumption was also adopted: if confrontation becomes inevitable, Trump is far more vulnerable than Biden or Obama - leaders Netanyahu openly sparred with. There would be no need to deliver a dramatic speech before Congress to strike Trump where it hurts most: his Republican, Christian base, which supports Israel unconditionally.

Instead, merely amplifying discontent from Israel could trigger Republican senators, conservative commentators, and right-wing influencers to pressure Trump into aligning quickly with Israel's position. Despite concerns in Jerusalem about several of Trump's recent statements, the ammunition prepared remains unused. Trump will be tested by his actions, not his words, and he has never lacked for those.

A senior minister, frequently involved in classified discussions, is leading the push for this approach, arguing that Israel holds significant leverage over Trump. In one cabinet meeting, he clashed with another minister who contended that this strategy was patronizing and unrealistic. Trump in his second term, he said, would be less beholden to his base or Evangelicals. He commands absolute control over the Republican Party and cannot be undermined.

At the same time, there has been work on a parallel message, reconciliation and renewed closeness with Trump. The key talking points: Trump is far better for Israel than Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. It was Trump's policies that allowed the bombing of Hamas leader Mohammed Sinwar using munitions that Biden had denied. Israel's military presence in strategic points across Lebanon and the Syrian Golan Heights, as well as its continued hold on parts of Gaza, would likely not be tolerated under Biden or Harris. Even on the issue of the Houthis in Yemen, Trump did more than Biden. He resolved the blockade on shipping lanes that Biden had left closed for over a year. With Trump, "America First" doesn't mean abandoning Israel. These messages resonated both in Israel and in the US this past week.

A tenuous reassurance

"Netanyahu, a league of his own," proclaimed the 2019 Likud campaign billboards, which featured a beaming Trump gazing admiringly at Netanyahu. The message was clear: with Trump in the White House, America was in Netanyahu's hands, as long as Israelis kept him in power. This week, however, that campaign looked outdated and detached, clashing starkly with the current narrative: Trump now prioritizes America's interests, not Israel's. That message echoed through every studio and political analysis in Israel over the past few days.

Is Trump distancing himself from Netanyahu, and from Israel altogether? Is this a temporary shift or the beginning of a new trend? These questions reverberated through Jerusalem, including in high-level security forums attended by Netanyahu.

Even among those who favored the more lenient interpretation, that Trump should be allowed this week to milk the trillions he seeks from those who can afford it (and from Israel, frankly, he cannot), and who viewed his remarks and actions through that lens without taking them too seriously, it was hard to find anyone who would state that position with full conviction. Not even Netanyahu himself. While Trump's aides went to great lengths to dispel the perception of a rift, their reassurances failed to fully convince.

Maintaining red lines

The week of Trump's Gulf tour had long been marked on Israel's diplomatic calendar. So too was the decision to grit its teeth and wait for the storm to pass. The greatest concern was that Trump might use the trip to pressure Israel into ending the war in Gaza before Hamas is fully dismantled and all strategic goals are achieved, including the demilitarization of the Strip.

Israel's current defense strategy, under Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir, is to retain long-term control over the territories captured during the conflict. But Trump's visit to Arab states, many of which oppose this stance, cast doubt over that policy.

Despite preemptive moves, such as Netanyahu's rushed visit to Washington from Budapest and the dispatch of Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer to the White House before Trump's Gulf departure, there was no certainty these efforts would succeed. One minister warned Netanyahu that Trump would spend the week hearing only one thing from Arab leaders: end the war, Israel is starving Gaza, and a political solution is urgently needed. And since Trump was bypassing Israel on the trip, no counter-narrative would be presented.

Despite efforts to prevent surprises, Trump delivered at least one unexpected blow: he moved to warm ties with the new Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, contrary to Israel's recent shift toward an openly confrontational posture. While Trump's camp insisted Israel had been informed in advance, officials in Jerusalem were stunned.

The shock wasn't about al-Sharaa himself, but about Turkey's potential gain from lifted sanctions. With no American deterrence, Turkey could soon funnel advanced weapons into Syria. The real threat isn't from Syrian troops, but from Turkish forces potentially stationed on Israel's northern border. Israel is still mulling its response to this development.

As usual, the opposition celebrated what they branded Netanyahu's failure, ignoring the broader national interest in maintaining strong US ties. For many critics, any blow to Netanyahu is worth celebrating, no matter the cost. They lashed out from both the right and the left, often in the same breath.

Opposition Leader Yair Lapid declared that "Trump is fed up with Netanyahu." Similar sentiments were echoed by lawmakers from Labor, Meretz, and Yisrael Beytenu. Their criticism? That Israel has failed to "open the gates of hell" in Gaza as Trump demanded early in his new term, while simultaneously calling for a hostage deal and a ceasefire.

Critics also argued that Netanyahu failed to align Israel with Trump's strategic interests ahead of the Gulf visit, leaving Israel excluded from emerging regional alliances and watching helplessly from the sidelines.

Two unviable options

There are only two ways to fit into Trump's regional map: invest huge sums in the US - which Israel cannot afford, as Trump's ask from Saudi Arabia alone dwarfs Israel's entire state budget - or revive the old fantasy of normalization in exchange for surrendering Gaza and the West Bank.

The latter would put Israel back on Trump's radar but would also endanger its security and signal weakness to its enemies, especially coming after the worst Arab massacre since the Israel's founding. Nothing would reward terrorism more.

Netanyahu firmly rejects this approach. It complicated his ties with Obama and Biden, and if necessary, he's prepared to clash with Trump too. The Abraham Accords are his legacy precisely because they did not involve territorial concessions. Giving up land or recognizing full Palestinian statehood would undermine not only future peace efforts but even the existing agreements with the four Arab nations that signed them, by reinforcing suspicions that they were based on secret promises of a future Palestinian state.

The post Netanyahu prepares for showdown with Trump, identifies key weak spot in president appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A senior security official revealed Monday in closed-door discussions that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is mapping out the conclusion of the Gaza war by October.

The official emphasized this represents a "final deadline," and should conditions mature and objectives be achieved, the military campaign could conclude earlier. According to the source, the underlying rationale is to prevent the conflict from extending beyond two years.

Meanwhile, Israel continues to reject ceasefire proposals that would allow Hamas to maintain an armed presence in Gaza. A diplomatic official told reporters Monday, "The reason we didn't launch an intensive campaign after the ceasefire ended but instead took gradual steps stems from our desire to give negotiations for the hostages' release a chance. We want to exhaust all efforts to return the hostages, which is what's influencing our operational patterns. We're still trying to maximize efforts to secure a hostage release deal, but our patience isn't unlimited."

The official noted that Qatar has exerted a negative influence on negotiations recently. Addressing new proposals, the source said, "Certain Arab countries are suggesting ideas like a five-year war pause. There's absolutely no chance we'll agree to a hudna [long-term ceasefire] with Hamas that would permit them to rearm, recover, and resume their war against Israel with greater intensity."

The post Israeli official says Netanyahu set Gaza War deadline appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

According to these officials, there are elements in the US administration who strongly oppose any American military intervention in Iran, and who also object to an Israeli strike that could provoke an Iranian response and lead to regional escalation. The assessment is that the leak was intended either to pressure President Donald Trump into taking offensive action or to embarrass him in front of his right-wing support base.

The officials emphasized that "the prime minister, government officials, and those close to them had no connection to this publication, which, as noted, is inaccurate, and the operational details it includes are also incorrect."

Fierce disagreements in Trump's circle

According to the New York Times report, Israel had formulated a plan in recent months to strike Iran's nuclear facilities as early as May. The plan, the report said, was supposed to include extensive US support but was blocked by President Trump, who preferred to try to reach a new agreement with Iran over its nuclear program.

The report described how the decision was made following intense internal disputes among Trump's advisors, between proponents of military action against Iran and senior officials who feared a descent into full-scale war in the region. Sources familiar with the decision-making process in the White House said that the hawkish camp, led by some of the president's security advisors, pushed to approve the Israeli plan and even advocated for active US involvement. Meanwhile, others - mainly in the State Department and the intelligence community - voiced strong opposition to a military move and warned of uncontrollable escalation in the Middle East.

According to the paper, the disputes within the Trump administration reflected an ongoing tension between two policy schools - one favoring a tough, even military stance toward Iran, and the other preferring diplomatic channels and negotiation. Trump himself, who took a hardline approach toward Tehran during his previous term, is now showing a more complex approach that combines threats with a willingness to reach an agreement.

The New York Times reported that the Israeli plan included the possibility of a commando operation combined with airstrikes, but was later adapted into a version that relied solely on aerial attacks. Almost all versions of the plan required US participation or assistance, both to ensure the mission's success and to help shield Israel from an Iranian response.

The report noted that Israel had hoped US support would include aircraft, defense systems, and intelligence sharing, and at one point even considered the deployment of American strike aircraft in Israel.

The post Israeli officials: 'The leak came from US elements opposed to an attack on Iran' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Senior security officials say in private conversations that as long as the humanitarian aid convoys entering Gaza are not secured by armed forces, the looting of humanitarian aid in the Gaza Strip will not stop, regardless of how it is delivered, Israel Hayom can reveal.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The proposal calls for arming Gaza residents who do not support Hamas who will also be part of the "day after" solution in the Gaza Strip. The security establishment has warned Israeli leaders that whoever controls the distribution of humanitarian aid in the Gaza Strip will ultimately control the strip and therefore those elements should be allowed to create the "humanitarian islands."

However, the issue of the identity of who will be armed for this purpose has been unresolved, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stating that they also cannot be Palestinian Authority members either.

As a result, the plan has been in limbo. A final discussion on the issue has not yet taken place since Netanyahu is currently delaying the decision.

Israel Hayom has learned that the security establishment has recently held discussions regarding the supply convoys and the need to separate them from Hamas, which has been diverting them for its own needs.

The issue arose as an urgent need after hundreds of Palestinians attacked humanitarian aid trucks on their way to the northern strip earlier this month, resulting in dozens of Palestinian deaths from overcrowding and trampling. The international community blamed Israel for this, despite the IDF presenting (with a 10-hour delay) a video clearly showing the cause of the Palestinian deaths.

From the recent discussions, it emerged that the countries willing to take responsibility for the supply convoys and the humanitarian islands have already demanded several weeks ago that local armed Palestinian guards, unaffiliated with Hamas, perform security duties to protect the convoys and local population, using weapons provided with Israel's approval.

Currently, any armed Palestinian in the Gaza Strip is defined by the IDF as a "terrorist", and treated as such by the forces. The reason is clear: The IDF currently controls the area, and any weapon poses a threat to the troops. If the plan to secure humanitarian convoys by local armed forces is approved, a situation may arise where armed Palestinians roam the strip while IDF forces are still maneuvering there.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Security officials seek to arm Palestinians to help secure aid convoys appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

An Israel Hayom poll conducted to mark the 100 days of war shows that the Israeli public feels a bond with the IDF Spokesperson Daniel Hagari and the majority oppose the possibility of reinstating the Palestinian Authority in Gaza.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The figures also show that there is a slim majority (53%) in favor of an agreement to release captives in exchange for terrorists. In the survey, conducted by the Maagar Mochot Institute on behalf of Israel Hayom, 505 individuals were asked to rate the conduct of key figures.

Some 83% said they approved of Hagari, while Netanyahu receives only a 40% approval rating, with 57% disapproved.

State Party Benny Gantz, who seems to have made the right choice by entering the government, gets a 67% approval rating compared to only 28% who disapprove.

Despite the central role played by Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi in addressing the lapses of October 7, 100 days after the war against Hamas, Israelis appear to be content with his performance: Some 71% approve, while 23% disapprove. Israel Police Commissioner Kobi Shabtai is also ranked high with 61% approving and of his job compared to 26% who disapprove.. 

Education Minister Yoav Kish, whose ministry facilitated the transfer of evacuees from their homes to hotels, receives mixed reviews. Some 36% disapprove, while 40% approve. Some 65% of respondents said they approved of President Isaac Herzog's conduct.

Concerns for politicians

In the political arena, Netanyahu's position appears better than that of Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Itamar Minister Ben-Gvir. Some 62% disapprove of Smotrich's actions, and 85% disapprove of Ben-Gvir. When categorized by party affiliation, it seems that Netanyahu's position is better with Likud voters, but he is still at a perilous position. Only 45% of Likud voters expressed satisfaction with Netanyahu's performance, compared to 38% for Gantz and 48% for the IDF chief of Staff.

The situation of Netanyahu, Smotrich, and Ben Gvir teaches two things: First, they would not want an election to be called; second, to regain the trust of the public, they will need to implement a right-wing policy on the field, not just make warrior statements in the cabinet against the military echelon.

Perhaps due to what has transpired since the 2011 Schalit Deal, Israeli public opinion is not favorably inclined towards a dangerous prisoner exchange deal that would let terrorists with blood on their hands roam free. 

Only 53% responded that they are in favor of such a deal compared to 47% against. The more right-wing a party is on the political map, the higher the number of opponents to a deal: Some 73% in the Religious Zionism and Otzma Yehudit factions were against a deal, while only 41% were against in Likud. Some 61% were in favor in Yesh Atid and similarly 59% in the State Party.

Doubts about control deals

Regarding the question of whether Israel will achieve the goals of the war – the release of all captives and the weakening of Hamas rule – only 36% believe the country will achieve these goals, while 64% believe it will not.

Asked if there is a need for action on the northern border or if it would be better to let the international community handle the situation, the majority, 69% said they were in favor of a military action that will eliminate the threat from the north.

As for the day-after question in Gaza and the involvement of the Palestinian Authority, it seems Netanyahu is in line with the mood among voters in Israel. Some 78% oppose having the PA rule in Gaza while only 22% are in favor.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post 100 days into war, Israelis seek more action – but show concern over endgame appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The war in Gaza is still in full swing, the northern front is heating up, and Israel has a unity government fighting complex battles here and abroad, but the majority of the public wants to start anew and call early elections, an Israel Hayom poll shows. 

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The poll shows that Israelis would like to have the elections take place as soon as possible, but perhaps not immediately. The Maagar Mochot Institute conducted the poll among 505 respondents who comprise a representative sample of the adult population in Israel. The sampling error is +/- 4.4%. Asked if they support elections as early as possible, 63% favored such a proposition, compared with only 37% opposed.

Those who were the most in favor of an early march to the polls were those who did not vote for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies in the previous election. Some 80% of Yesh Atid voters (in the previous elections) said they wanted. Among voters of the State Party (led by Benny Gantz, who entered the Netanyahu government after the war broke out) 59% said they wanted an election held. 

Some 38% of Likud voters supported early elections while only 45% opposed them. Some 25% of Religious Zionism-Otzma Yehudit voters supported early elections, while 51% opposed. This trend also continues among voters of the ultra-Orthodox Shas and United Torah Judaism parties.

The original pre-war Coalition comprising Likud and its right-wing and ultra-Orthodox allies would only get  52 seats if elections were held today, compared to the 64 they got in the previous election, making it all but impossible to swear in a government without support from the side of the divide. Likud would receive 21 seats, Otzma Yehudit and Religious Zionism 14 as a single faction, Shas 10 seats, and United Torah Judaism 7.

The big winner from holding elections now would be the last party that joined the government and is now extending its days: The State Party led by Gantz. It is projected to garner 31 seats in the poll, compared to only 12 seats in the current Knesset. The poll is bad news for the Labor Party, which would not pass the election threshold, unlike Meretz is expected to enter the Knesset (having failed to do so in the Nov 2022 election). Labor will get a new chairperson when before the election, which could change the dynamics of the race.

Likewise, the entry of people such as former Mossad chief Yossi Cohen and Naftali Bennett could change the map of mandates and the map of future blocs.

Of Likud voters in the last elections, only 48% said they would vote again for the ruling party. Some 14% said they would vote for the State Party, and 16% said they would not vote. The State Party also gets voters from Yesh Atid: Some 28% of Yesh Atid voters said they would vote this time for Gantz's party and some 26% of Yisrael Beytenu voters also said they would this time support Gantz.

Who is the most suitable?

Respondents were given five names and for each, they had to determine whether he was the most qualified to be prime minister using three different rankings. From the survey it appears that the candidate with the highest score (unsuitable, suitable, very suitable) is Gantz, with 28% support, followed by Netanyahu with 21% and  Bennett with 20%, then Yesh Atid Chairman Yair Lapid (16%) and Yossi Cohen (15%).

Some  27% of Likud voters currently believe that the most suitable candidate for prime minister is Gantz. Some 62% of Yesh Atid voters think Gantz is the most suitable, compared to 59% who still think Lapid is the most suitable. 

Even 26% of those who voted for Otzma Yehudit and Religious Zionism think Gantz is more suitable than Netanyahu. 

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Israel Hayom poll: Overwhelming support for early election, Right loses majority appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's leaked remarks at the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in which he stated that the death toll in the October 7 massacre was similar to the death toll caused by terrorism following the Oslo Accords in the 1990s – has set off a firestorm within his own party. 

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

While Likud MKs agree with the content of what he said – as Israel braces for the "day after" and the US push to have the Palestinian Authority reassert control over the Gaza Strip – others in the ruling party have said behind closed doors that Netanyahu's comments have crossed a line because during wartime political campaign statements should be measured.

"One must be careful not to divide at this time," a senior Likud source said. The source added that despite the general view in Likud that Oslo was indeed a disaster, there are things better left unsaid as half a million troops are fighting in Gaza and thousands of others are mourning dead relatives killed in battle or murdered, while others are worried about the fate of their loved ones in Hamas captivity."

Video: Biden speaks about Netanyahu during / Credit: Reuters

In the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Netanyahu said that "Oslo is the mother of all sins," the beginning of the notion of withdrawing from territory, which ultimately led to the current situation. Labor Party Chairwoman Merav Michaeli asked him why, then, he had not tried to cancel the Oslo Accords during his long years in power.

To this Netanyahu replied: "The problem was not with the agreement itself but with its implementation." He elaborated that the idea of allowing Arabs to manage their civilian affairs is a good idea, but bringing Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat to do so, and in fact, establishing an authority hostile to Israel, is the problem.

A Likud source who was present in the committee meeting room said "Netanyahu is in full campaign mode." The source added, "As the political challengers from outside Likud grow stronger, and Netanyahu knows that over time the attacks and calls for his ouster will intensify, he first of all wants to bring back his base. To bring back the right-wing crowd that supported him and distinguish it from everyone else. To do this he now attacks Oslo and rejects allowing the Palestinian Authority into Gaza, warning that others would do that without thinking twice if they were to unseat him."

However, according to that source, "even these polarization attempts need to have limits." The sources added, "During wartime one cannot return to divisive and inflammatory rhetoric against a large public, some of whom are now in Gaza in uniform, some of whom are licking the wounds from the massacre. Netanyahu would have done well to refrain from these statements and not repeat them."

Another Likud source, closer to Netanyahu, said Netanyahu's need to attack Oslo and the Palestinian Authority stems not so much from domestic political considerations as from the need to rebuff international pressure. "The US has been talking about the two-state solution since the war broke out. President Biden mentions it relentlessly in his speeches. Netanyahu wants to show him and the world just how much he opposes Palestinian Authority rule the day after the collapse of Hamas, as well as to rule out the two-state solution in the West Bank, which is why he talks about Oslo and the victims and makes sure to stress that it didn't work and that there is no point in trying it again at the expense of Israeli citizens' lives."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post 'Netanyahu in full campaign mode': Likud sources blast PM for focusing on electoral prospects during wartime appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

When the ceasefire was in effect, the War Cabinet ministers made it clear time and again that this was just a temporary pause. In fact, all the government ministers said that. They made it clear not only to the citizens of Israel but also to world leaders, chiefly among them President Joe Biden.

October 7 was a seminal moment when an entire nation was humiliated and was dealt a painful blow. Even as Cabinet ministers instructed the IDF to cease fire, it was important for them to convey a united front and stress that the fire would resume after the pause. This was maintained even in closed-door security consultations in the larger and smaller versions of the Diplomatic-Security Cabinet.

Video: The Hamas attack on Zikim Beach on Oct. 7, 2023 / Credit: Usage under Israeli Intellectual Property Law, Section 27a

Nevertheless, despite the united front and consistent message, it is still possible to pick up nuances among the leaders of the war. Inevitably, the delicate cracks in the first act will eventually become a political clash in the final act of the play. There are already differing opinions on how to manage the war, but there are major divisions among the main protagonists over what the "day after" should look like.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The issue of the post-war reality is one of the most sensitive topics today, and discussions about it have not been taking place in any official forum; only in internal consultations. If there is a significant point of contention with the Biden administration regarding Gaza, it revolves around this question. Israel can accommodate the administration on various matters – such as providing humanitarian aid at the request of the American president and even the supply of fuel. It can also say that it is "doing its best" to heed the request not to harm the displaced population in the southern Gaza Strip when the IDF operates there.

However, to hand over the area to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is an entirely different ballgame. Ministers Benny Gantz and Gadi Eizenkot would gladly do this, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are less enthusiastic.

They have all conveyed the message that Israel has no intention of governing the area's civilian affairs after the war. Gallant means it seriously. Netanyahu doesn't project the same certainty. He has made it clear in his statements that an authority supporting terrorism, paying salaries to terrorists, and inciting its children against Jews will not rule Gaza. This suggests that he will not allow the Abbas' Ramallah henchmen into Gaza. There is no clear alternative. Hence, the IDF will continue to control the area, both security-wise and the civilian life, at least in the foreseeable future.

But another plan has been thrown into the mix. Most cabinet ministers are unaware of it, including the War Cabinet ministers. It is not discussed in these forums due to its combustible nature: It envisions the thinning of the population to the lowest possible level. Biden opposes it vehemently, as does the entire international community. Gallant, the IDF chief of staff, and the top brass of the IDF claim that is unfeasible. But Netanyahu sees it as a strategic goal.

This plan is designed to overcome American resistance without clashing with the administration, while addressing Egypt's vehement opposition without starting a refugee crisis or having Egyptians fire on Gazans crossing into Sinai. It also aims to defuse the global outcry that will emerge once Gazans begin to move voluntarily to other places.

Having refugees in war zones is a given. Millions of refugees have left conflict zones around the world in the past decade, from Syria to Ukraine. They have found refuge in countries that agreed to accept them as a humanitarian gesture. So, why should Gaza be any different?

This is not about a forcible transfer but rather the release of the stranglehold at the Gaza border. Although the crossings into Israel would remain closed, there are other possibilities. Rafah is one of them, despite Egypt being very much against it. There have been periods in which this crossing was essentially open to all, with underground passages resembling an underground freeway. The sea is open to the Gazans as well. Israel has control over the maritime route and it can let that route become accessible should Gazans decide to flee to European and African countries.

But there are major gaps between the government ministers as to whether Israel should be actively encouraging Gazans to leave. For Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, as well as quite a few Likud ministers, such a policy is a necessity. Others, like Gantz, Gallant, and Eizenkot view things as nothing more than a fantasy or even a despicable and immoral plan.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Will Israel actively encourage migration of Gazans? The hot potato that is dividing the government appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just wants an off-ramp that would allow the judicial reform saga to go away. Perhaps not for good, but for the time being for sure. The compromise proposal presented by the president to the Opposition leaders and the protesters — from which the Likud distanced itself – is a plan he would gladly embrace. 

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

He believes it gives everyone what they want – the Opposition will get the long pause to the legislation on judicial reform; Justice Minister Yariv Levin and other die-hard supporters of the reform in the Coalition would get a veto on the Judicial Selection Committee under the official letter of the law, which would include a right to handpick the Supreme Court's chief justice. They can come back for more later. 

Video: PM Netanyahu speaks about judicial reform / Credit: Twitter/Prime Minister's Office

Netanyahu doesn't believe that accepting the plan would be tantamount to surrender. He won't give the Opposition such an accomplishment, which would only reinforce the feeling among right-wing voters that they are second-class citizens because it would underscore the Right's inability to govern even when winning elections. 

In recent days Netanyahu has been devising a strategy that would divide his term into two phases: The first, for a duration of just over a year, would see the judicial reform put on hold (except for the Judicial Selection Committee changes), and this would go ahead even without the Opposition's input. The remainder two years of his term (or 18 months if the government collapses and early elections are called), will see the judicial reform movement move full steam ahead. 

He doesn't see a contradiction in the two phases of his term, he believes this is just a necessity. The launching of the judicial reform was flawed and got the Left mobilized because of its bombastic and dramatic declarations, essentially sucking out the air from all the other policy goals of the government. The public no longer listens to what the ministers say, despite the government working for the citizens and doing big things, because Israelis have been distracted fully by the judicial reform process. This is not where Netanyahu wanted the government to be some 8 months after its formation. He has big things on the agenda: Meeting President Joe Biden and finalizing a deal with Saudi Arabia, as well as bolstering Israel's economy and dealing with the pressing security needs in the wake of growing terrorism. 

Netanyahu wants all the background noise to go away to get all this done, and he is willing to give the Opposition a long pause in judicial reform and even legislate a bill that would prevent the removal of the attorney general for that duration. He believes this would calm the Left's concerns, but no one on the other side is willing to talk about compromise. 

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Netanyahu's plan: Secure 2 years of calm with a unilateral compromise appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.