International newspapers: Washington misunderstands the geography of Gaza and Netanyahu is in a difficult situation | news

International newspapers and websites discussed the interactions of the new American plans related to the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, amid skepticism about their feasibility and increasing criticism of Washington’s increasing involvement in managing the conflict. At a time when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finds himself in a complex political situation, internally and externally.

In the New York Times, David Halffinger raised questions about the practicality of Washington’s plan to launch reconstruction projects in areas currently under Israeli control inside Gaza, wondering whether these plans are actually implementable or whether they are doomed to failure.

The writer went on to ask whether this American effort would lead to sustainable peace or would it be seen as a back passage towards a new military occupation.

The newspaper quoted a source in Gaza as saying that the Trump administration “misunderstands the geography of the Strip,” explaining that Israel mostly occupies agricultural and industrial lands that are difficult to convert into residential areas as Washington imagines, considering that the American proposal is “illogical” and reflects a superficial understanding of the nature of the land and the security reality.

As for French Le Figaro, it stated that the establishment of the Civil-Military Coordination Center this week – in the Israeli city of Kiryat Gat – demonstrates the size of the direct American footprint in conflict management.

Joint custody

According to observers quoted by the newspaper, this arrangement establishes a form of joint guardianship over civil affairs in Gaza between the United States and Israel.

However, a UN source who spoke to the newspaper believed that the stated goal of establishing this center was to achieve a degree of stability in the Strip, but at the same time he acknowledged that this step formalizes American supervision of Israeli behavior.

He added that Washington is exercising this role under the guise of humanitarian aid, while practically transferring part of the operational control to its custody.

On the other hand, the Israeli Haaretz appeared bolder in its approach to the scene, as it concluded that the United States did not only come to administer Gaza, but to administer Israel itself.

The newspaper’s writer criticized US Vice President J.D. Vance’s reaction to the Knesset vote on annexing the West Bank, after he described it as a “symbolic vote,” considering that this characterization reflects a disregard for the nature of the political transformation in Israel.

She saw that Washington began to realize that the dilemma does not lie only with the Palestinians, but in the structure of the Israeli decision itself.

She wondered whether this stage represents a transition towards reform leading to a two-state solution or a confederation formula, or whether Israel is moving towards a deeper process that may end with some form of voluntary annexation by the United States or even the internationalization of the region extending between the river and the sea.

American frustration

As for the American Politico, it focused on the escalating state of frustration within decision-making circles in Washington towards the Netanyahu government, especially after De Vance conveyed a message that the newspaper described as “stern” to the Israeli Prime Minister.

She pointed out that the recent Knesset vote on annexing the West Bank put Netanyahu in a very sensitive political position.

Politico explains that Netanyahu is now forced to rely on the support of right-wing parties that support annexation in the upcoming elections, which restricts him politically in any future negotiations.

At the same time, any public break with US President Donald Trump will cost him a heavy political price, given his wide popularity within Israel and his pivotal role in enhancing Netanyahu’s image during his previous campaigns.

The newspaper concludes by saying that Washington finds itself facing a double dilemma: on the one hand, it seeks to reshape the scene in Gaza within the vision of “post-war reconstruction,” and on the other hand, it faces an increasingly stringent Israeli partner that exploits American support for narrow internal calculations, which makes the United States’ mission more complex than ever before.