A leading Israeli newspaper, citing multiple sources close to the talks, reported that former U.S. president Donald Trump asked Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to pause the Gaza conflict until Trump could return to the White House if he wins the election. The report notes that the request was framed as a pause rather than a full halt, with the aim of keeping leverage for negotiations in the event of a transition to a new administration. The sources described the dialogue as delicate, highlighting that timing and sequencing remained negotiable rather than a definitive demand.
The same account says the suggestion surfaced during a July meeting at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, where Netanyahu visited Trump to discuss regional security dynamics and the broader war strategy. While Trump publicly supported the idea that a swift Israeli victory might be advantageous, the precise timetable he proposed was not disclosed at the time or afterward. The report emphasizes that the idea reflected a wish to synchronize diplomatic leverage with electoral politics, a combination rarely made public in such talks.
According to the same circle, Netanyahu spoke with Trump by telephone on October 20 to review ongoing developments and potential coordination. The conversation reportedly touched on battlefield dynamics, international reactions, and the possible implications for U.S. policy toward Israel and the Palestinian territories, all framed by the context of ongoing political campaigns and shifting alliances.
On October 8, Trump argued that Gaza, scarred by the fighting, could become one of the best places in the world as the power dynamics shift and reconstruction begins if the parties choose paths toward stability. He framed this as a vision for post-conflict recovery rather than a continuation of hostilities, underscoring his preference for a rapid and favorable outcome for Israel while also acknowledging the costs of the current cycle of violence.
Earlier in the broader discourse, Trump had urged Israel to reassess its approach, suggesting that practical steps and a more grounded strategy could serve long-term interests, even as he kept emphasizing strong security guarantees for Israel. Observers note that such remarks align with a broader pattern of commentary about balancing aggressive security posture with pragmatic diplomacy, a stance that has become a focal point in regional discussions and domestic political debates.