The “Phase Two” Peace Plan: Distraction as a Strategy
This month, U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff announced the launch of “Phase Two” of President Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan. The plan ambitiously moves from ceasefire to “demilitarization, technocratic governance, and reconstruction”. The centerpiece is a new Palestinian “National Committee for the Administration of Gaza,” tasked with the small job of clearing 60 million tonnes of rubble—some containing human remains and unexploded ordnance—and the administrative challenge of governing a devastated territory.
The Masterstroke: By focusing the world’s attention on a complex, untested peace plan and a technocratic committee meeting in Egypt, the administration has masterfully shifted the conversation away from the mundane topic of writing new checks for military aid. Who needs F-35 funding when you can have a “Board of Peace” led by a Bulgarian diplomat?
The Congressional Theater: The Aid That Almost Wasn’t (And Then Really Wasn’t)
Over in Congress, lawmakers engaged in their own performance art. The House considered the appropriations bill H.R. 7006, which became a stage for symbolic votes on America’s role in the world.
Key amendments included:
· Amendment #14 (Massie, R-KY): Proposed striking $3.3 billion in grants for Israel from the bill.
· The Gambling Clause (Amendment #13): A bi-partisan effort to reinstate rules on gambling loss deductions, because setting fiscal policy for Vegas is as crucial as setting it for the Middle East.
· The Shrimp Farming Ban (Amendment #3): A bold move to protect national security by prohibiting funds for international shrimp farming projects.
The Ironic Twist: While the amendment to cut Israeli aid was merely proposed and not necessarily passed, its mere existence on the docket provided perfect cover. The administration can now claim that political headwinds in Congress are too turbulent for traditional aid, making their new “no-aid” approach both prudent and forward-thinking.
Netanyahu’s “We’re Too Rich For Your Charity” Gambit
The real punchline comes from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself. In a move that reportedly left President Trump “bewildered,” Netanyahu announced his intention to wean Israel off U.S. military aid within a decade.
· Netanyahu’s Logic: Israel’s economy will soon be a “trillion-dollar” powerhouse, making annual aid packages look like pocket change. He framed it as a move to maturity and a strategy to improve Israel’s embattled reputation in the U.S..
· Trump’s Reported Reaction: Sources say Trump could not understand why a leader would refuse billions in free money and was skeptical it would improve public opinion. The president reportedly sees the aid as a valuable bridge to American manufacturing jobs.
· The Unspoken Truth: Analysts suggest Netanyahu is performing a strategic retreat. With the current aid agreement expiring in 2028 and bipartisan support in Washington becoming less certain, he’s choosing to frame a potential loss as a voluntary victory. It’s the geopolitical equivalent of breaking up with someone before they can break up with you.
The “America First” Aid Model: Less Giving, More… Something Else
This new paradigm aligns perfectly with the broader “America First” foreign policy playbook. The administration has slashed U.S. contributions to U.N. humanitarian assistance from a potential $17 billion to around $2 billion, telling international agencies to “adapt, shrink or die”. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres recently slammed such “wholesale cuts” for “shaking the foundations of global cooperation”.
In this context, not giving new aid to a relatively wealthy ally isn’t a policy failure—it’s a pioneering doctrine. Why give grants when you can pivot to lucrative arms sales and joint defense projects that funnel money into the U.S. industrial base? As one source noted, Trump sees the aid relationship as a bridge to “restoring American manufacturing”. The future is not aid; it’s a mutually beneficial business partnership.
Conclusion: A Nobel Prize in Creative Accounting?
The Trump administration, with an unexpected assist from Netanyahu, has therefore achieved the impossible. It has created headlines about “U.S. security aid to Israel” that involve no new congressional aid packages, a proposed reduction in funding by lawmakers, and a pledge from the recipient to eventually refuse the money.
It’s a trifecta of diplomatic ambiguity that saves face, saves money, and leaves everyone wondering what just happened. The only thing being “passed” this month is the buck. For innovative statecraft that boldly promises stability while deftly avoiding financial commitment, this month’s non-policy surely deserves some kind of award. Perhaps one that doesn’t come with a monetary prize.