Four reasons why Benjamin Netanyahu may not want a Gaza ceasefire to hold

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to have gotten what he wants from President Donald Trump as he nears the close of his most recent trip to the United States.

After their meeting on Monday, Trump praised Netanyahu, calling him a “hero” and saying that Israel, and by extension its prime minister, had “lived up to the plan 100 percent” in response to the US president’s signature Gaza ceasefire.

Despite reports last week that US officials were beginning to feel frustrated over Netanyahu’s apparent “slow walking” of the 20-point ceasefire plan, which the US administration had imposed in October, and that the Israeli prime minister may be hoping to keep the door open for Hamas to resume hostilities at a date of his choosing.

After the exchange of all captives in Gaza, both alive and dead, aid deliveries into the area, and the freezing of all front lines, Gaza would move toward phase two, which includes discussions about creating a technocratic “board of peace” to govern the area and the deployment of an international security force to safeguard it.

Netanyahu has so far refused to provide all the aid Gaza desperately needs, and he also claims that phase two cannot begin until Hamas recovers the body of the last captive. After Trump’s meeting on Monday, he fully supported his request that Hamas disarms before Israel withdraws its forces.

Hamas has repeatedly criticized Israel’s forced disarmament, and officials have claimed that Palestinian factions should discuss the issue of arms internally.

Why would that be the case if Netanyahu tried to avoid entering the second phase of the agreement without making any effort?

Here are four reasons why Netanyahu might enjoy things as they are:

Right in front of him is a lot of pressure.

By any measure, Netanyahu’s ruling coalition is the most liberal coalition in country history. The support of Israel’s hardliners has helped the prime minister’s coalition survive periods of intense domestic protest and international criticism.

Numerous members of the right now oppose the ceasefire, including finance minister Bezalel Smotrich and national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who are also demanding that Gaza be occupied.

Israeli Katz, Netanyahu’s defense minister, has also shown little interest in upholding the agreement that his nation signed in October. Katz asserted that Israel’s forces would remain in Gaza, eventually allowing for further settlements, during a ceremony to mark the expansion of the most recent of Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Katz later apologized, allegedly after the US pressured him.

He opposes a deployment of international forces in Gaza.

Israel’s operational freedom would be constrained by allowing an international force to be deployed to Gaza, which would also limit its military’s ability to enter the country again, carry out targeted strikes, or pursue Hamas resurrected areas.

More than 400 people have been killed in the enclave since Israeli forces agreed to end fighting on October 10 despite the ceasefire.

Politically, allowing an international stabilization force, especially one from neighboring states, would turn what Israel has frequently seen into a domestic war into a global conflict, with many of the decisions being made by actors outside its control in terms of strategy, diplomacy, and politics.

It could also be seen as a concession made by the US and the international community, which undermines Netanyahu’s repeated pledges to uphold Israeli sovereignty and strategic independence.

Israeli political analyst Nimrod Flaschenberg said from Berlin, “If Netanyahu allows a foreign military force to enter Gaza, he immediately denies himself a significant portion of his right to operate.” He should want things to stay exactly where they are, but not to alienate Trump, he said.

He wants to block any progress toward a two-state solution.

The ceasefire&nbsp agreement includes terms that Israel and the Palestinians agree to engage in a dialogue toward what it refers to as a “political horizon for peaceful and prosperous coexistence,” though it doesn’t explicitly mention a two-state solution.

However, Netanyahu has campaigned on the issue since at least 2015 and has been opposed to a two-state solution.

He criticized Israel’s refusal to grant the establishment of a Palestinian homeland at the UN in September, calling the decision to recognize a Palestinian state “insane.”

The two-state solution is still a practical possibility thanks to Israeli ministers’ efforts. The establishment of a viable state would be impossible under Israel’s plan to establish a number of new settlements in the West Bank, which would have previously been thought to be the region’s capital.

This is more than just a geographical ill-fated consequence. Smotrich predicted that the project would “bury the idea of a Palestinian state” when it announced the plans for the new settlements in August.

He would gain from a new start to war.

Netanyahu is the subject of numerous domestic threats, including those involving his own corruption trial and the potentially explosive issue of imposing compulsory military service on Israel’s ultra-religious students. He also faces public scrutiny for his own failures on October 7, 2023, which will fall under a crucial election year for the prime minister.

His coalition may splinter as a result of each of these difficulties, which could weaken his grip on power. However, any new conflict could derail or at least make them politically ambiguous, with Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, or even Iran.

Source: Aljazeera