The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly the recent hostage negotiations, has been heavily influenced by internal Israeli politics, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly succumbing to pressure from extremist coalition partners. The narrative widely understood by Israelis and observers alike suggests Netanyahu has consistently backpedaled during crucial junctures in the negotiations due to threats from Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, leaders of extremist right-wing parties, to collapse the governing coalition. Netanyahu has consistently attempted to mask these politically motivated concessions, portraying delays and setbacks as anything but the result of internal power struggles.
A key example of this dynamic is Ben-Gvir’s frustration over the emerging ceasefire agreement being brokered in Qatar. This agreement is being facilitated by Steve Witkoff, a U.S. envoy appointed by former President Donald Trump, despite loud protests from Israeli extremist factions. Following a meeting with Witkoff in Jerusalem, Netanyahu instructed Israeli negotiators in Qatar to concede on several key points. This meeting itself underscores the shifting political landscape in the region and the anticipation of a potential return to Trump-era policies. The circumstances surrounding the meeting – Witkoff’s insistence on a Saturday meeting despite the Jewish Sabbath and Netanyahu’s acquiescence – further highlight Witkoff’s assertive approach and the influence he wields.
This incident illustrates the power dynamics within Netanyahu’s coalition. During earlier stages of the negotiations, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich held significant leverage, as their combined Knesset seats were essential for the coalition’s survival. Any dissent from them threatened to topple the government and force new elections, a scenario Netanyahu desperately sought to avoid. Their opposition to any concessions to the Palestinians effectively stalled the negotiation process for an extended period. This has resulted in unnecessary loss of life, according to retired General Giora Eiland, who pointed out the similarity between the current agreement and one available months prior.
However, the political landscape has since shifted, with the expansion of Netanyahu’s coalition. This has diluted the power of the extremist parties, reducing their ability to dictate terms to the Prime Minister. While they still maintain a strong presence and influence within the government, their ability to single-handedly collapse the coalition has diminished. This has given Netanyahu more room to maneuver in the negotiations, allowing for progress towards a ceasefire.
The implications of this internal political struggle extend far beyond the immediate negotiations. The concessions made to appease extremist elements within the coalition potentially undermine the long-term prospects for peace and stability in the region. The concessions also set a dangerous precedent, empowering hardline factions and potentially emboldening further extremist demands in the future.
The current situation underscores the fragility of the Israeli political landscape, with the pursuit of peace often entangled in complex internal power struggles. The influence of extremist parties, even within a broader coalition, has a significant impact on the direction of policy, often hindering progress towards a resolution. The episode also highlights the significant impact of international actors, as demonstrated by Witkoff’s intervention, and the complexities of navigating regional and international politics within the context of domestic considerations. The ultimate success of any peace agreement will depend not only on resolving the core issues of the conflict but also on navigating these internal political dynamics and mitigating the influence of extremist elements seeking to maintain the status quo or even escalate the conflict. The human cost of these political maneuvers, as pointed out by General Eiland, remains a stark reminder of the urgency for a sustainable and peaceful resolution.
