Netanyahu’s Obvious Gift to Trump Lies in Gaza Ceasefire Details

The ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel announced Wednesday won’t take effect until Sunday, January 19, just before Donald Trump’s inauguration the next day. That does not appear to be a coincidence.

Since being elected, Trump has warned on multiple occasions that an agreement should come before his inauguration, saying that there will be “hell to pay” or “all hell will break out.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made no secret of his preference for Trump in the 2024 election, either, and Israel’s ceasefire with Lebanon was likely a gift from Netanyahu as well.

The timing of the ceasefire is a reminder of a similar situation faced by President Jimmy Carter in the final days of his presidency in 1980, as negotiations were underway to free American hostages in Iran. Ultimately, the hostages were deliberately released the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president, thanks to the efforts of the Reagan campaign.

With the release taking place this late, Trump gets a propaganda victory and is already claiming credit for the agreement, even though he’s not yet in office, and some Israeli officials are crediting the sudden progress in negotiations to him. But Trump can’t take total credit: Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has boasted about deliberately sabotaging ceasefire agreements over the past year.

According to one analyst, Wednesday’s deal is almost identical to a deal proposed on May 27 that Israel rejected, with six minor changes in the appendix. So what’s different now from eight months ago? Netanyahu has his preferred president, and Trump can take credit. The question is if Netanyahu is getting something in return—and what will happen to Gaza’s long-suffering civilians next.

Democratic Senator Adam Schiff delivered scorching criticism Wednesday of Pam Bondi, Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general, over her closeness with the president-elect.

During her confirmation hearing, Schiff pressed Bondi on whether she “had the independence” to “tell hard truths” to Trump, despite their close relationship and the fact that she was chosen precisely for her loyalty.

“Let me start with an easy truth that you could speak to the president. Can you tell us, can you tell him, that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election?” Schiff asked.

“Senator, what I can tell you is I will never play politics. You’re trying to engage me in a ‘gotcha.’ I won’t do it.” Bondi replied. After the 2020 election, Bondi joined forces with Rudy Giuliani to sow doubt about the results on Trump’s behalf.

“I won’t play politics with any ongoing investigation, like you did, leaking your colleague Devin Nunes’s memo,” she replied, refusing to answer the actual question.

Schiff took a moment to explain why exactly Bondi’s loyalty was dangerous, and would come back to bite her.

“The president has a right to choose people he believes will be loyal to him. Our concern comes when that loyalty of the president conflicts with your duty, conflicts with the Constitution, conflicts with your oath,” Schiff said.

“And our questions have been designed to try to ascertain what you will do when that inevitable conflict arises. And you may say you believe that conflict will never come. But every day, week, month, and year of the first Trump administration demonstrated that conflict will come.

“Jeff Sessions may not have believed it would come to him—it came to him. Bill Barr may not have believed it would come to him—it came to him. It came to everyone. It will come to you. And what you do in that moment will define your attorney generalship, your public service. Everything you’ve done up to that moment will be judged by what you do in that moment,” Schiff said.

During her confirmation hearing, Bondi refused to answer simple questions about her views on birthright citizenship and whether she would pursue legal action against former special prosecutor Jack Smith; former Congresswoman Liz Cheney; and Bondi’s potential predecessor, Merrick Garland.

Israel and Hamas’s historic ceasefire agreement could have come a lot sooner, according to Israeli leadership.

The text of the ceasefire agreement, which was released Wednesday, shares copious similarities with the last ceasefire agreement brokered between Israel and Palestine in May, including mirrored proposals for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the “densely populated areas along the borders in all areas of the Gaza strip” and the release of 1,000 Gazan detainees who were not involved in the events of October 7.

Israel National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir practically boasted about successfully sabotaging ceasefire agreements over the last year, posting on X Tuesday that “through our political power, we succeeded in preventing this deal from moving forward time and time again.

“However, since then, additional elements have been added to the government, who now support the deal and no longer constitute a balancing act,” he continued, referring to Israel’s United Right Party, which grew from 64 to 68 Knesset members, according to The Jerusalem Post.

Still, Ben-Gvir torched the ceasefire as a “terrible deal,” imploring his opponents to join him in rejecting it yet again while advocating for Israel’s continued siege on Palestine.

“Along with this, I call on the Prime Minister to come to his senses and take steps that will lead to the defeat of Hamas and the release of our hostages without abandoning Israel’s security: completely stop the transfer of humanitarian aid and fuel, electricity, and water to Gaza, along with continuing the military crushing of Hamas until its complete defeat,” Ben-Gvir wrote.

But the defense minister’s plea was not received well by other Israeli politicians.

“For a year now, I’ve been saying that you have been preventing a hostage deal from materializing for political gain,” responded opposition leader Yair Lapid, calling Ben-Gvir’s comments a “terrible truth.”

Donald Trump jumped to claim credit for brokering the ceasefire moments after it was announced on Wednesday, despite the fact that he was not in office for the duration of the conflict. But his instinct may not be far off: A diplomat briefed on the negotiations credited their sudden progress to the incoming forty-seventh president, reported The Washington Post.

Trump warned last week that “all hell” would break loose if the two nations did not reach a ceasefire agreement by the time he returned to the White House on January 20. That was, apparently, the “first time there has been real pressure on the Israeli side to accept a deal,” the diplomat told the newspaper.

Pam Bondi, Donald Trump’s nominee for the next U.S. attorney general, refused to give a basic yes or no answer, during her confirmation hearing Wednesday, regarding her views on birthright citizenship, which is etched into the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

“You’ve testified repeatedly to this committee that you will uphold the laws of this country and defend the Constitution of the United States,” said Democratic Senator Alex Padilla. “Do you believe birthright citizenship is the law of the land, and will you defend it regardless—a child born of the United States—regardless of their parents’ immigration status?”

Bondi refused to answer the question. “Senator, I will study birthright citizenship, I would love to meet with you regarding birthright citizenship—”

“Ma’am, you’re asking to be considered to serve as the attorney general of the United States, and you still need to study the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution?” Padilla retorted. “That is not helping me have more confidence in your ability to do this job.”

Bondi’s nonanswer is deference to President-elect Trump, who said he’d end birthright citizenship via executive order on Meet the Press in December.

The Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Senators on both sides of the aisle took issue Wednesday with Donald Trump’s nominee to run the Office of Management and Budget, noting that Russell Vought’s evasive and bureaucratic nonanswers as to whether he’d obey the law while serving the country were alarming.

When pressed on whether he would obey the Impoundment Control Act—in which Congress reexamines executive branch withholdings from the budget—and break away from Trump on his plans to withhold congressionally approved funds, Vought deferred and said that he would obey the law.

“I’m not going to continue to break the law,” Vought said. “I’m giving you my commitment to uphold the laws of this land.”

But the nominee then followed up by claiming that the law is unconstitutional and suggested that Trump’s incoming administration would have to consider on their own whether or not they would follow it.

Vought also refused to pledge that he wouldn’t deny grants based on the requester’s political alignment.

“I’m astonished and aghast that someone in this responsible a position would, in effect, say that the president is above the law and that the United States Supreme Court is entitled to their opinion, but mine should supersede it,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal during the hearing.

Vought ran Trump’s Office of Management and Budget from July 2020 to January 2021, during which time he froze military aid for Ukraine, claimed that foreign aid expenditures were “wasteful spending,” and worked to expand the number of federal employees required to work during a government shutdown.

He scooped up another supporting role in Trumpworld during the incoming executive’s presidential campaign: developing a 180-day “transition playbook” to expedite Project 2025’s implementation in the federal government. But his appointment to run the nation’s budget office could see him enter a critical role in shrinking the federal government and advancing Trump’s agenda.

The 920-page Christian nationalist manifesto advanced outwardly outrageous policy positions, including dismantling wholesale staples of the executive branch such as the Department of Education. But as time has marched on, those outlandish policies have morphed from a fascistic pipe dream to a forthcoming reality among the far right in Congress: On Monday, North Carolina Representative David Rouzer introduced legislation in the House formally filing to eradicate the public education agency.

Other portions of Vought’s Project 2025 proposed revisiting federal approval of the abortion pill, a national ban on pornography, placing the Justice Department under the control of the president, slashing federal funds for climate change research in an effort to sideline mitigation efforts, and increasing funding for the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

Vought was also the architect of Trump’s “Schedule F” proposal, which plans to fire thousands of civil servants and replace them with as many as 54,000 pre-vetted Trump loyalists to the executive branch via executive order.