Standing alongside former President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared his acceptance of the U.S. leader’s proposed plan aimed at ending the ongoing conflict in Gaza. However, mere hours later, speaking in Hebrew to his domestic audience, Netanyahu walked back that commitment, emphasizing that he had not consented to the establishment of a Palestinian state and reaffirming that Israeli military presence would persist throughout much of Gaza.
Trump’s 20-point plan ostensibly addresses many of Israel’s objectives in the current conflict, including the return of Israeli captives, the dismantling of Hamas as both a military and political entity, and the establishment of a temporary international administration in Gaza that poses no threat to Israel’s security. Yet, the political landscape that Netanyahu must navigate is fraught with potential pitfalls, particularly given the human toll of the conflict, which has already claimed over 66,000 Palestinian lives.
As Netanyahu weighs the implications of this plan, he faces a formidable challenge. The prime minister has maintained his coalition by insisting on the continuation of the war, but this latest development raises critical questions: Is he truly prepared to end a conflict that has caused unprecedented devastation? Or will he seek alternative means to perpetuate the war?
In an election year, Trump’s Gaza plan provides Netanyahu with a dual opportunity: to present himself as a victorious leader while simultaneously deflecting attention from potential investigations into his government’s failures leading up to the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks. According to Israeli political scientist Ori Goldberg, the narrative Netanyahu can construct is significant: “He can say, ‘I fought the war. I destroyed all of Gaza. I went further than anyone ever thought possible,’ while framing any ceasefire as a necessary step for peace.”
However, this narrative comes with risks. Despite being Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, Netanyahu is besieged by fierce domestic opposition. His government, bolstered by far-right cabinet members such as National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, is increasingly reliant on their hardline stance, which demands an escalation, rather than a termination, of military actions in Gaza.
Critics have suggested that Netanyahu may be prolonging the conflict to distract from his ongoing corruption trial or to stave off inquiries into his government’s failures leading to the October attacks—investigations that have already resulted in significant military leadership changes. Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli ambassador, noted the precarious nature of Netanyahu’s situation, stating, “Trump is not like Biden; Netanyahu can no longer count on reliable support from the Republican Party. If Trump chooses to exert pressure, Netanyahu is acutely aware of the consequences.”
Furthermore, Pinkas highlighted that the public nature of the agreement with Trump limits Netanyahu’s maneuverability. “Trump anticipated that if this agreement were made in private, Netanyahu would likely emerge with a different narrative. By making it public, Netanyahu is constrained from altering the reality.”
Despite widespread public demonstrations advocating for negotiations to end the conflict, Netanyahu has chosen to align with the far-right faction that seeks to expand Israeli settlements in Gaza and displace Palestinian residents. Even as polls indicate that a majority of Israelis desire an end to hostilities, Netanyahu’s political choices reflect a prioritization of his coalition’s hardline agenda.
Smotrich has already criticized Trump’s plan, deeming it a “resounding diplomatic failure” and an abandonment of the lessons learned from the recent conflict. Meanwhile, Ben-Gvir’s opposition is rooted in his anger over Netanyahu’s reported apology to Qatar for an unprovoked attack on Hamas representatives, a move made under U.S. pressure that he views as a betrayal.
As tensions mount within the Israeli parliament, Netanyahu’s coalition faces increasing pressures. Opposition leaders, including Yair Lapid, have expressed willingness to support a ceasefire, presenting Netanyahu with a politically viable route to accept U.S. terms. However, Netanyahu has thus far opted to align with the far-right, which sees the continuation of conflict as a means to achieve its broader objectives.
Goldberg noted that while the far-right may feel disappointed by the Trump plan, it is unlikely to result in significant shifts within the coalition. “Ben-Gvir and his supporters may grumble, but they recognize that their agenda aligns with Netanyahu’s,” he said. Nevertheless, this alliance has complicated the path to peace and resolution.
As analysts ponder Netanyahu’s future, many agree that he is in a precarious position. “His strategy may involve delaying any acceptance of the plan, citing security concerns while simultaneously escalating military actions,” Pinkas suggested. “In due time, the landscape may shift, and he hopes Trump’s focus will wane before he is forced to act decisively.”
Yossi Mekelberg of Chatham House emphasized that Netanyahu’s immediate priority is political survival. “If key right-wing figures withdraw from the coalition, he might opt for elections, framing any military successes as victories. However, the moment the conflict concludes, he risks finding himself politically isolated, with rivals poised to exploit his vulnerabilities.”
Ultimately, while Netanyahu may seek to present himself as a steadfast leader in a time of crisis, the challenges he faces are complex and multifaceted. The conflict continues to evolve, and the consequences of his decisions will reverberate far beyond the immediate political landscape, impacting the lives of countless individuals in Israel and Palestine.
