How Israel's domestic politics explain what is happening (and will happen) in Gaza

Israel's current domestic policy is crucial to understanding the future of the current ceasefire and, in general, the peace plan in Gaza promoted by the United States under President Donald J. Trump. Zionist political extremism, Netanyahu's personality cult, and the instability of his legislature are factors that have influenced previous attempts at peace during the last two years of war, and this occasion seems to be no exception to the rule.

To gauge the Degree influence of these factors, we need to look back at the last elections held in Israel in 2022, a year before the start of the conflict with Hamas. Those elections were deeply marked by polarization around the figure of Benjamin Netanyahu and his political bloc, which leaned toward the extreme right and was made up of his Likud party and the merger between Betzalel Smotrich's Religious Zionist Party and Itamar Ben-Gvir's Jewish Power, which narrowly exceeded 49% of the total electorate. The elections were also marked by the minimal representation in the Knesset obtained by the opposition bloc to Netanyahu, partly due to the lack of understanding and alliances between political groups such as Meretz and the Labor Party, as well as between the Arab parties Balad and the Joint List. In addition, the increase to 3.25% (up from 2% in 2014) in the threshold of votes required to obtain a parliamentary seat made it difficult for minority parties to enter the Knesset and win seats.

In order to maintain his fragile governing coalition, Netanyahu had to make significant concessions to the smaller coalition partners. As a result, the politically important ministries of National Security and Finance are held by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, respectively. From these positions, both have been responsible for managing the Palestinian issue within Israel to a greater or lesser extent.

Public acceptance

Aside from the complicated parliamentary arithmetic in Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu's low public approval rating is also relevant to understanding the status the Gaza war and the precarious ceasefire that has been signed. One of the main reasons why there was (and still is) controversy surrounding Netanyahu as prime minister is the legal proceedings initiated in 2020 and still ongoing against him on charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.

A final reason, related to the previous one, is linked to the campaign launched during his term in office to introduce judicial reform that would reduce the courts' ability to control government actions and would directly undermine the principle of separation of powers that is characteristic of a democracy.

Thus, following the attacks on October 7, 2023, Netanyahu's government found the perfect casus belli to save its project . For Netanyahu, the war is an opportunity to salvage his reputation in the eyes of public opinion if he manages to end the conflict with a resounding victory over Hamas; it also allows him to push his legal proceedings into the background. For Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, meanwhile, it is an opportunity to crystallize their supremacist and anti-Arab ideology into concrete actions around Palestine, in a context of national urgency in which these may go unnoticed.

In terms of his degree program , Netanyahu finds in war a narrative that counteracts the polarization surrounding his figure. At times when his leadership has been most questioned, Netanyahu has shown the most forcefulness in his actions against Hamas, reaffirming the image of 'defender of Israel' that he has worked hard to build since his political beginnings.

Ben-Gvir and Smotrich

Since Ben-Gvir position National Security, he has made efforts from within the government to politicize the country's police forces, intervening directly in police appointments and operations. This is evident in the lax control exercised by the authorities in response to violence against Palestinians and their settlements in the West Bank by Israeli settlers, or in the excessive repression of anti-government protests, which have become frequent since the start of the war.

His counterpart in the Ministry of Finance, meanwhile, has been responsible for exerting excessive financial pressure on Palestinians inside and outside Israel by eliminating an exemption allowed cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian banks, and by refusing to provide public funds to Israeli Arab municipalities, thereby reinforcing the pressing segregation that exists between the Jewish and Arab populations in the country.

Both Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, aligned in their ideological vision, are reluctant to plenary session of the Executive Council a plenary session of the Executive Council lasting ceasefire with Hamas. Instead, they take a colonialist stance, aimed at annexing the territories of Gaza and the West Bank and establishing Jewish hegemony there, even if strong military operations are necessary to achieve this.

According to a report the UN Independent International Commission of research Occupied Palestinian Territory, Netanyahu's government has adopted measures, most likely influenced by the most radical faction of his government, that frame the conflict in Gaza within a plan to control the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel. In this context, negotiations aimed at reaching agreements to end the war are becoming more difficult, prolonging the conflict with no goal in sight.

management

The factors highlighted at the outset are decisive when analyzing the Netanyahu government's management of management conflict. Five days after the Hamas attacks, Israel created a national unity cabinet to deal with the war from an alternative forum to the Security Cabinet, of which Ben-Gvir and Smotrich are members, in response to the requirements by the leader of civil service examination Benny Gantz. The cabinet was also to include Yair Lapid, leader of Yesh Atid, another important civil service examination party. However, Lapid ultimately rejected written request arguing that the presence of two competent cabinets on this subject insurmountable, that the two will end up confronting each other's decisions, and that, furthermore, he will not be part of the government as long as Ben-Gvir and Smotrich are part of it. Thus, the war project continued under Netanyahu, Gantz, and Yoav Gallant, Minister of Defense, but the project would project cease in June 2024.

The issues raised by Lapid were precisely the causes that explain the cabinet's failure: Ben-Gvir and Smotrich openly criticized the role of the War Cabinet, alluding to the fact that they had been excluded from it; they considered that the actions taken were not aggressive enough against Hamas and Hezbollah, and demanded that the weight of decisions be transferred to the Security Cabinet. Gantz ended up resigning from the government due to the inability of Netanyahu and his defense minister to come up with a plan of action that met his objectives, possibly due to the aforementioned criticism from within the government. Without Gantz, and without a civil service examination would provide another perspective on the conflict, far removed from extremist views, the cabinet no longer made sense.

During the following months, Netanyahu and Gallant were primarily responsible for military actions. Clashes between the two were frequent for reasons such as the lack of a clear military strategy, the need to open negotiations for the rescue of Israeli hostages, the establishment of a Research Committee the management the October 7 attacks, and the compulsory conscription of ultra-Orthodox Jews, among others.

The civil service examination Gallant from the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, another of the minority political forces supporting Netanyahu; the minister's resistance to goal repeated goal of a 'total victory' over Hamas; and his view that Israel's military actions had been effective enough to begin negotiating peace agreements and the rescue of hostages and to halt hostilities ultimately led, according to the defense minister himself, to his dismissal in early November 2024. The latter argument, in particular, can clearly be considered another determining factor in his dismissal if we consider the influence of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir on government decisions and their firm stance on the conflict.

Katz on Defense

Thus, since Gallant's dismissal, the position Minister of Defense has been held by Israel Katz, a person who fits better within the government's framework and who satisfies the demands of its members, as he advocates the narrative of "total victory" and the occupation of Palestinian territory, if necessary for Israel's purposes. His profile also contrasts with that of Gallant, who, like Gantz, stood out as a more moderate and pragmatic figure, qualities not particularly valued by members of the government.

This is linked to the approval of the latest general budget for this year, which, had it been rejected for failing to meet the demands of the radical bloc, would have led to the fall of the government and, consequently, a new electoral process. The new budget a considerable increase in defense spending at the expense of other social areas that are important to society, which is linked to the government's warmongering tendencies.

agreement

In light of all these issues, the October 9 agreement appears particularly fragile, even more so if we analyze what happened with the agreement signed in January of this year, which failed largely due to the aforementioned internal political issues in Israel, as extremist members of the government pressured Netanyahu to continue the conflict and cease negotiations, even with the majority of the population against it, especially the families of the hostages kidnapped by Hamas. In addition, the vague conditions set out in the agreement a broad interpretation of it, which facilitated the return of war.

We now find ourselves once again facing a scenario of similar magnitude which, despite the intensification of the conflict to the point of being classified as genocide of the Gazan population by the research Independent International Commission of research the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and the consequent rejection by the international community, may have a similar outcome, if it is not already doing so. Netanyahu and his government do not see this first phase of agreement beginning of a lasting peace, but rather as a truce between the two sides. Given their ideological composition and internal power dynamics, the agreement is used instead as a mechanism to preserve their strategic advantage and prevent the emergence of a strong and unified Palestinian authority.

Netanyahu's balancing act

Netanyahu is trying to balance the two pressures weighing on his government right now: discontent among the Israeli people and the international community on the one hand, and the demands of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich on the other. So far, he seems to be succeeding. On the one hand, he has agreed to commit to a cessation of hostilities and the reopening of a humanitarian corridor to supply the population in Gaza in the first phase of agreement, while also securing the return of Israeli hostages in Gaza in an exchange Palestinian prisoners in Israel, thereby appeasing the pressure and criticism that had been hanging over him and his government both nationally and internationally. On the other hand, taking advantage of the vagueness of the conditions set out in the agreement such as the location and conditions of the withdrawal of Israeli troops), or waiting for a breach or a (possible) attack by Hamas, he is preparing to return to the path of war promoted by Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. The latter, just ten days after the agreement was signed, directly told Netanyahu to forget about the ceasefire and resume the military campaign in Gaza "at full power."

Thus, geopolitical forecasts regarding a peaceful and final solution final Israeli-Palestinian conflict do not seem likely to materialize easily within this scenario. The international actors involved, especially the United States, will have to take into account the consequences of the emergence of an illiberal democracy in Israel in the implementation of this new peace plan, because it is an illiberal democracy led by a fragile and extremist coalition government that hinders a peaceful solution and, even more so, hinders the recognition of the Palestinians' right to self-determination and the effective establishment of a Palestinian state, which are crucial elements in any possible solution to this conflict.