(Summary: If the war-ending plan is not the same as the one from a year ago, why do some commentators claim otherwise? After two years since the October 7 attack, the answer lies again in one person – Netanyahu – the source).

With the publication of Trump’s 21-point plan and the new proposed deal, claims have emerged from various commentators that the same plan was already proposed a year ago. This is a fundamentally false claim that is not difficult to refute, even in times when truth and facts have become subjective.

Even the latest plan, in every proposed deal, required Israel to pay first and then receive. For example, Israel had to withdraw from the Philadelphia axis and its surroundings as a start before receiving a single hostage; Hamas refused to proceed without international guarantees that Israel would not return to fighting and would protect its people, and of course rejected the demand to disarm. In short, Israel was forced to surrender before even knowing if it would get the hostages or not.

In the current plan, the missing persons are released in the first phase. Even if the living are released first, or we see the missing return under different circumstances, this is the plan’s condition: the missing first. After that, other matters follow in which Israel also holds a superior position compared to previous plans: continued Israeli presence around Gaza and the Philadelphia axis (unlike previous plans), disarming Hamas – including Israeli presence in parts of Gaza until its disarmament, and more.

If the outlines are not the same, why do some commentators claim so? After two years since the October 7 attack, the answer again lies in one person – Netanyahu. The current agreement was signed by the same person responsible for October 7 – Netanyahu. The likelihood of his success in reaching a decent, even good, agreement is not guaranteed. Ultimately, this situation carries many meanings. For example, Israel under Netanyahu’s leadership has weathered international storms over the past two years, from the Biden administration to the Trump administration, amid European hypocrisy and anti-Semitism. The insistence on occupying Gaza city was a correct decision despite opposition from some senior Israeli military officials. The attack on Qatar takes a different turn suddenly when Qatar, the main rejecter, shows surprising readiness to pressure Hamas.

Not to mention the possibility that Netanyahu has awakened since October 7 and realized that the policy of containment was a mistake, and that following senior Israeli military officials proved wrong when Israel’s security policy reached its lowest levels specifically during his tenure.

If it turns out that the prime minister at the time of the disaster succeeded in achieving a good agreement for Israel, the new policy he outlines may become one future leaders wish to adopt as well: for example, appointing a defense minister unafraid to confront the chief of staff; making military decisions contrary to the general staff’s position; attacking Iran and Qatar and “risking” relations with friendly countries; refusing to allow the Palestinian Authority to consolidate its presence in Gaza or appointing a “different” head for the General Security Service (Shabak). To create a situation similar to what Netanyahu did with Trump – where the US president’s position aligns with a strong Israel’s position. In fact, for a minority in Israel, an Israeli victory may represent a “dangerous” precedent. Who said another right-wing prime minister would not adopt this approach in the future?

For those who fear this and thus try to downplay the current plan, it is worth noting. It is not just one man, but the camp – without the right, Eli Sharvit would be head of the General Security Service (Shabak) today. Without new organizations like the Hope and Courage Forum, there would be no one supporting Netanyahu in some of these changes. Not only Bibi signed the current plan, but the people did as well.