Shin Bet warning prompts Israel to delay next phase of Trump Gaza plan

UPDATE:  Netanyahu adamant Israel won’t comply with Gaza plan, insists he can stand up to Trump

All Israel News Staff | Published: August 9, 2026

President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shake hands after joint press conference announcing the U.S. peace plan for Gaza, Monday, September 29, 2025, in the State Dining Room of the White House. Photo by The White House - Flickr, Public Domain, WikipediaPresident Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shake hands after joint press conference announcing the U.S. peace plan for Gaza, Monday, September 29, 2025, in the State Dining Room of the White House. Photo by The White House – Flickr, Public Domain, Wikipedia

Israel has yet to sign off formally on U.S. President Donald Trump’s Gaza plan based on intelligence that suggests Hamas is seeking to limit Israel’s ability to act militarily.

Israel is concerned that the proposed transition to Phase 2 could constrain its military freedom of action before Hamas has actually demonstrated that it is willing to disarm, leaving Israel vulnerable to a drawn-out negotiation.

According to The Jerusalem Post, Director of Israel’s Security Agency (Shin Bet), David Zini, warned ministers that Hamas could use the proposed demilitarization process to prolong negotiations and limit Israel’s freedom of action, rather than genuinely giving up its military capabilities.

Zini stated he believes that Hamas is “dragging their feet” and “waiting for the elections, and then they will see what happens.” Israel is slated to hold elections on Oct. 27 this year.

The main point of contention is a proposed 14-day period to prepare for implementation of the next phase.

According to Israeli officials cited by the Post, cabinet ministers largely opposed taking steps that could signal Israel had entered the 14-day period, which would entail restrictions on Israeli military operations, including targeted strikes against Hamas operatives.

Walla likewise reported that Israel had not signed or formally approved the Board of Peace’s (BoP) demilitarization roadmap and had raised significant objections to the proposed terms.

The BoP published a 15-point roadmap last week that calls on both sides to fulfill their remaining obligations under the previous agreement before finalizing the mechanisms for implementing Phase 2 during a 14-day period.

The status of the proposed multinational force remains unresolved. While the security cabinet approved a legal framework for a roughly 200-member International Stabilization Force in late July, each national contingent would still require separate Israeli approval, according to Reuters.

The Post reported that a separate document governing the force’s deployment remained unsigned following Israeli objections, and that Israel had not formally authorized its entry under the new arrangements.

At the same time, the Post learned that the government had approved the entry of approximately 200 members of the force following U.S. pressure.

The reports suggest a distinction between Israel’s approval in principle of the force’s legal framework and final authorization of its deployment and operating arrangements.

Preparations by potential troop-contributing countries are nevertheless moving forward.

Uganda’s parliament voted Thursday to authorize the deployment of troops to Gaza if needed as part of the international force.

Reuters reported that the broader Trump plan remained stalled, with no clear timeline for when the force would actually deploy.

August 9, 2026 | 10 Comments »

Leave a Reply

10 Comments / 10 Comments

  1. The other part I missed was what David Zini was proposing. The article was unexpectedly short on that. His conclusions regarding what Hamas are trying to do are what we too would suggest, but I really, really missed his proposals to deal with the approaching situation where Iran demands, the Arabians reinforce, and Trump expects us to uphold his side of the deal.
    I think he has drastically miscalculated this time. Or should I say, I hope?

  2. The part I missed was where Hamas are compelled to sit still while they’d very much prefer to misbehave.

    Since we all know that Hamas can’t sit still and Israel can’t afford to let them misbehave, it comes down to the international conclusion of what’s worse?

    In both cases there will be no peace. Israel will certainly do everything in its power to avoid the repetition of 10/7, while Hamas is on a collision course. Who will the international community support?

    Unfortunately, we already know the answer to that. If only for that reason, it’s time for Israel to quit playing Mr. Nice and get the job done despite the objections from abroad.

  3. Trump 2016 primary Israel “I’m going to make everybody happy.”

    Google AI Overview:

    During the 2016 Republican primary campaign, Donald Trump frequently used variations of the phrase “I’m going to make everybody happy” when discussing his approach to brokering a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. He positioned himself as a master dealmaker who could achieve the “ultimate deal” by approaching the conflict from a position of relative neutrality. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

    Context of the Neutrality Stance
    In late 2015 and early 2016, Trump broke sharply with standard Republican Party orthodoxy by refusing to automatically assign blame for the conflict or fully side with Israel during negotiations: [1, 2, 3]
    * The “Neutral Guy” Approach: In interviews and debates, Trump stated that he wanted to remain a “neutral guy” so that both sides would trust him when they came to the negotiating table. [1, 2]
    * The Logic: He argued that if he publicly favored one side before talks even began, the other side would walk away, ruining any chance of a successful compromise. [1, 2]

    Backlash from the GOP
    This stance drew sharp criticism from his primary rivals, such as Senator Marco Rubio and Senator Ted Cruz, who argued that an American president should never be neutral regarding Israel. Trump faced significant pushback during events like his December 2015 speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition, where he was booed for questioning Israel’s commitment to peace and refusing to declare Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel. [1, 2, 3]

    The Pivot at AIPAC
    Due to the intense pressure from conservative voters and donors, Trump pivoted significantly by March 2016. During his heavily anticipated, teleprompter-read speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference on March 21, 2016, he firmly aligned himself with traditional pro-Israel policies. [1, 2, 3, 4]
    In that speech and subsequent interviews, he backed away from his strict “neutrality” rhetoric: [1, 2]
    * He declared that the bond between the U.S. and Israel is “absolutely, totally unbreakable.”
    * He stated that while he would still love to negotiate a peace deal, “I am very pro-Israel” and neutrality was likely impossible due to the amount of hatred in the region. [1, 2, 3]

    Would you like to explore how his final policy decisions during his presidency (like moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem) compared to these early 2016 primary statements, or look into the transcripts of his 2016 AIPAC speech?

    • nixon even-handed policy israel

      Google AI Overview:

      +12 President Richard Nixon’s “even-handed” policy was an early 1969 initiative led by Secretary of State William Rogers to distance the U.S. from acting exclusively as Israel’s advocate, aiming instead to balance relations with Arab nations, encourage land-for-peace via UN Resolution 242, and curb Soviet influence. The approach quickly stalled due to Israeli resistance and Cold War dynamics, shifting into strong military and strategic backing for Israel by 1970.Origins and GoalsThe Rogers Plan: Formulated by Secretary William P. Rogers, it proposed a negotiated withdrawal by Israel from territories captured in the 1967 Six-Day War in return for binding peace agreements from Arab states.Reducing Regional Tensions: Aimed to repair severed U.S. diplomatic ties with Egypt and Jordan while undercutting Soviet efforts to position themselves as the primary ally of the Arab world.Reassessing the U.S. Role: Proponents inside the State Department argued that America needed to stop acting as “Israel’s attorney” to achieve long-term stability in the Middle East.Friction and OppositionIsraeli Pushback: Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir strongly rejected the initiative, arguing that the plan compromised Israel’s security borders and amounted to an imposed settlement.Domestic Political Pressure: Pro-Israel American organizations and congressional leaders heavily criticized the administration, viewing the policy as a betrayal of a democratic ally.Cold War Realities: Escalating Soviet arms shipments to Egypt and continuing cross-border clashes convinced Nixon and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger that pushing Israel for unilateral concessions was counterproductive.Shift Toward Strategic AllianceAbandonment of Pressure: By 1970, the administration sidelined the Rogers Plan and prioritized maintaining a decisive regional balance of power in Israel’s favor.Massive Military Aid: The administration approved substantial sales of advanced aircraft (such as F-4 Phantoms) to counter Soviet-supplied Arab arsenals.The 1973 Yom Kippur War: During the October 1973 war, Nixon firmly committed the U.S. to Israel’s survival through Operation Nickel Grass (an emergency resupply airlift), solidifying a deep strategic and military partnership that superseded the initial even-handed framework.

      • lbj even-handed Israel

        Google AI Overview:

        President Lyndon B. Johnson fundamentally shifted U.S. foreign policy away from the “even-handed” Middle East approach practiced by his predecessors. While his administration initially tried to maintain a public facade of neutrality, Johnson’s personal convictions and strategic calculations ultimately forged the modern, deep military and diplomatic alliance between the United States and Israel. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

        The Illusion of “Even-Handedness”
        * The Official Stance: Early in his term, Johnson attempted to sustain John F. Kennedy’s strategy of balancing relationships with both Israel and Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt. The goal was to keep regional disputes “in the icebox” to prevent a Cold War arms buildup. [1]
        * The Reality Check: This posture quickly dissolved due to aggressive Soviet weapons shipments to Arab nations and Nasser’s sharp anti-Western rhetoric. [1, 2]
        * The Covert Shift: Declassified records reveal that while the administration maintained a “superficial appearance of even-handedness” for global diplomatic positioning, Johnson was quietly executing a highly favorable policy toward Israel. [1]

        Breaking the Arms Embargo
        * First Offensive Weapons: Johnson shattered the traditional U.S. policy of avoiding major regional weapons sales.
        * Heavy Armor: In 1964, he approved the historic sale of over 200 M48 Patton tanks to Israel.
        * Air Superiority: He authorized the delivery of advanced combat aircraft, including A-4 Skyhawk and F-4 Phantom II fighter jets, cementing Israel’s qualitative military edge. [1, 2, 3]

        The 1967 Six-Day War Pivot
        * Pre-War Caution: In the immediate buildup to the June 1967 war, a heavily distracted White House—consumed by the escalating Vietnam War—told Israeli leaders that “Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go it alone”. [1]
        * Post-War Shield: Once Israel secured its lightning victory, Johnson permanently abandoned any pretense of an even-handed stance. [1, 2]
        * Land for Peace: Unlike Dwight D. Eisenhower, who forced Israel to unilaterally retreat after the 1956 Suez Crisis, Johnson flatly refused to pressure Israel to give up captured territories (the Sinai, West Bank, and Golan Heights) without comprehensive, direct peace treaties from Arab neighbors. [1, 2, 3, 4]

        Nuclear and Geopolitical Tolerances
        * Dimona Reactor: Johnson actively looked the other way regarding Israel’s developing nuclear capabilities. He dropped American pressure on Jerusalem to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
        * The USS Liberty Incident: Even after Israeli forces attacked the USS Liberty in June 1967, killing 34 American servicemen, Johnson accepted Israel’s apology and minimized the fallout. He prioritized the broader Cold War strategic partnership over domestic retribution. [1, 3, 4]
        * ?
        AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses

        1

        • Humor

          “Ah yes. well, there’s two sides to every story.”

          “Except for the Nazis. I can’t really see the other side of that argument.”

          – “Music and Lyrics (2007) @14’36 (Prime has it)

          irrelevant but meaningful trivia:

          “way back to love performed for teen audience waving lights in Vietnam stadium ”

          ” +5 The performance you are thinking of is the iconic live cover of “Way Back into Love” performed during the massive Vietnamese reality music show “Anh Trai Say Hi” (specifically the concert series held at My Dinh National Stadium in Hanoi).Key Details of the PerformanceThe Stage: The performance took place at My Dinh National Stadium, one of Vietnam’s largest outdoor sports and entertainment venues.The Trend: Fancams and clips of this duet went massively viral on TikTok, Instagram Threads, and Facebook. This was due to the nostalgic, sweet nature of the song choice combined with the immense scale of the audience.The Atmosphere: The “teen/young adult” audience created a “light ocean” by turning on their phone flashlights and synchronized fan lightsticks, waving them to the slow rhythm of the ballad.Background on the SongOrigins: “Way Back into Love” is originally a 2007 pop ballad written by Adam Schlesinger for the romantic comedy film Music and Lyrics.Original Singers: It was famously recorded as a duet by Hugh Grant and Haley Bennett (as well as a demo version featuring Drew Barrymore).Cultural Status: The song has long been a staple favorite in Asian countries, frequently covered in karaoke and television music competitions due to its harmonious melody and heartfelt lyrics.Are you looking for the exact names of the two Vietnamese artists who sang this duet on the show, or do you want to find the original video link to watch it ”

          Can’t find the clip. It showed the film playing behind the singers who I thought were Korean.

          “antisemitism Vietnam”

          “Local Sentiment: Overt antisemitism is virtually unheard of among native Vietnamese populations. Local communities and businesses have a long history of being friendly and welcoming to foreign visitors, including Jewish travelers and Israeli tourists.Incidents: The country has no systemic anti-Jewish or anti-Israel agitation. Isolated hostile events involving tourists or foreign nationals have occurred—such as viral arguments initiated by visiting foreign tourists—but local leadership and community members generally view these behaviors as unrepresentative of the country.Vietnam maintains normal diplomatic and economic relations with Israel.”

        • @Sebastien
          Also take note of the fact that LBJ’s pro Israel stance preceded him entering the White House. He opposed Eisenhower folowing the 1956 debacle and specifically noted that Eisenhower was employing a double standard on Israel while also threatening that he [LBJ] would publicly oppose any effort to apply sanctions on Israel, which was being considered by Eisenhower at the time.

          1

          • @Peloni Some years ago, there was an illuminating article in The Jewish Press – Arutz Sheva’s NY sister paper – which has stopped publishing much of anything since Mamdani – and which I can’t find now in Google or Duckduckgo – though it came up in Google AI Overview – which additionally mentioned that as the youngest Senate Majority leader in history in 1957, he blocked Eisenhower from criminalizing donations to Israel both at home and in the U.N. Security Council and negotiated the compromise of U.N. Peace keeping troops which would withdraw at Nasser’s request, exactly ten years later.

            Additionally, as a Freshman Congressman in the 1930’s, he “allegedly” skirted the Roosevelt administration’s illegal blocking of nearly all Jewish immigration, by issuing hundreds of forged visas to Jewish refugees.

            Honoring LBJ’s Moral Courage
            In 1995, the Holocaust Museum Houston established the Lyndon Baines Johnson Moral Courage Award one year after it opened its doors. According to the museum, recipients of this award are individuals, like Johnson, who exhibit moral courage, take personal responsibility and are willing to take action against injustice. The award is part of the HMH’s annual fundraising activities and outreach program. Since its inception, the museum has bestowed this honor on 15 distinguished individuals and one deserving European country for altruistic acts that benefited all mankind. Dr. David P. Bell, a longtime member of the HMH board of trustees, believes that Lyndon Johnson, as a congressman, stretched the limits of his authority and risked his political career to rescue European Jews from the Holocaust – a mission based on his moral imperative. “The basis of why we honor LBJ at the museum is because he was a first-term congressman, with his whole future ahead of him, and he took extraordinary risks that would have jeopardized his political career on behalf of people he didn’t know,” Bell said.

            https://aish.com/operation-texas-lbjs-mysterious-mission-to-save-jews

            His grandfather belonged to a Christian Zionist denomination.

            Google AI Overview:

            President Lyndon B. Johnson’s paternal grandfather, Samuel Ealy “Big Sam” Johnson Sr., held religious ties to the Christadelphian church, which taught that Jewish people were God’s chosen people. He famously instructed young LBJ to “take care of the Jews,” helping shape the future president’s lifelong pro-Israel sympathies.Grandfather’s InfluenceReligious Background: Big Sam Johnson associated with the Christadelphian community, an evangelical group that held unique theological views regarding the return of the Jewish people to the Holy Land.The Directive: He instilled a sense of duty in young Lyndon, telling him: “Take care of the Jews, God’s chosen people. Consider them your friends and help them any way you can.”Family Tradition: LBJ’s aunt, Jessie Hatcher, was also a dedicated member of the Christadelphian faith and an active member of the Zionist Organization of America.Impact on LBJ’s PresidencyInternalized Values: Biographers note that Johnson internalized these early lessons from his grandfather and aunt, which later influenced his political receptiveness to Jewish refugees and the Zionist movement.Diplomatic Stance: As president, Johnson maintained a strongly supportive diplomatic stance toward Israel during critical periods, reflecting the complex blend of populist sympathy for the persecuted and his family’s formative religious background.

            But, I did find this:

            “Lyndon Johnson and Israel:
            The Secret Presidential Recordings”

            https://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/abraham/publications/johnson_israel.pdf