THE END OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT

Following the dissolution of the country's military government by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, there was a noticeable shift towards radicalisation. Furthermore, Netanyahu dissolved the government in response to the opposition leader Benny Gantz's decision to leave the cabinet due to his disagreement with the prime minister on the future of Gaza. This, in turn, suggests that the continuation of the war with Hamas will be conducted on a more challenging footing.

In the context of ongoing disagreements, Netanyahu urged his government partners to refrain from actions that could destabilize the coalition and to refrain from passing legislation that could threaten its existence.

Facing Government Crisis

The most disconcerting development for Netanyahu is the recent refusal of members of his coalition, including his own party, to endorse a bill that would grant the government greater authority over Israel's municipal rabbis. These officials, who are responsible for overseeing marriages, divorces, and other domestic matters, have been a source of contention within the coalition. The bill was proposed by the prime minister's ultra-Orthodox allies and was endorsed by him in part due to his desire to maintain the stability of the ruling coalition. Those opposed to the bill argued that its passage would result in a power grab by the ultra-Orthodox, as it would grant them greater control even in cities that are considered relatively secular.

Mayors and Likud lawmakers were unwilling to endorse the proposal, and Netanyahu was compelled to withdraw the bill. According to experts, this indicates that the prime minister's iron grip is weakening. As public support for Netanyahu has declined, other party members, including former Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, may seek to position themselves as the next party leader.

Another prominent Likud member, Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, also opposed Netanyahu, refusing to support a law that would protect the exemption of ultra-Orthodox from military service and its attendant legal complications.

Concurrently, Netanyahu must rely on parties that have threatened to withdraw from the government if their bills are not passed.

As is well documented, shortly after the events of 7 October, opposition leader Benny Gantz was appointed to the emergency war cabinet, along with Galant and Netanyahu. The political rivals agreed to equal roles in the body responsible for war-related decisions in order to demonstrate to the nation that they were unified in their efforts to combat terrorism.

 The division of roles between the political rivals was also maintained following the IDF's initiation of a ground operation in the Gaza Strip. However, the two leaders' relations deteriorated further due to their differing views on the terms of the ceasefire and Netanyahu's reluctance to devise a post-war governance strategy for Gaza.

In both instances, the Prime Minister declined to make any specific commitments, presumably in order to avoid contravening the far-right members of his coalition. They objected to any policy that could halt the conflict or permit the Palestinian Authority to assume a role in Gaza's future. Given that he has only four seats in parliament, Netanyahu is unable to afford to lose even one of his coalition parties.

Ganz's Departure, Galant's Conditions

Gantz's departure prompted concerns that the prime minister might rely more heavily on his most radical partners in the Gaza conflict, despite his previous threats of war with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Following his resignation, Gantz became more vocal about the necessity for a ceasefire and the release of hostages. His actions may have had an impact on the street protests against Netanyahu, which grew in size and were accompanied by increased police repression.

As the conflict in Gaza persists, senior military officials are increasingly discussing the viability of a contingency plan: who will assume control of Gaza following the cessation of hostilities?

In the absence of a plan to assume control of the sector by any authority, the troops are unable to withdraw from Gaza. There is a risk that Hamas will regroup, rearm and carry out an operation similar to that of 7 October.

For Netanyahu, the situation represents a significant political challenge. His most radical allies advocate for Israel's permanent occupation of the Gaza Strip and even the restoration of Jewish settlements there.

Facing simultaneous challenges from both internal and external sources, Netanyahu declined to formulate any strategy whatsoever. When pressed for further details, he merely reiterated that Israel would continue to fight until Hamas was "destroyed".

It has become increasingly evident to military leaders and supporters of a cessation of hostilities in Gaza that a plan for a political settlement is necessary. In an interview, the IDF's chief spokesman, Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, stated that "Hamas cannot be destroyed." Hamas is a concept. Those who believe that it can be eradicated are mistaken.

The Prime Minister's Office was swift to disavow the statement, asserting that the IDF is dedicated to the goal of vanquishing the group.

Furthermore, the Defence Minister, Yoav Galant, has urged the Prime Minister to devise a plan for the governance of Gaza following the conclusion of hostilities. This plan should abandon the notion of establishing Israeli military and civilian rule in the Strip, as proposed by some members of the Prime Minister's coalition with far-right political affiliations.

Negotiations At Deadlock

Against this background, negotiations in Cairo to resolve the conflict have not yet yielded any obvious results. Hamas's demands include a complete cessation of attacks, the withdrawal of the Israeli army, the reconstruction of Gaza, an exchange of prisoners and assistance to the inhabitants of the Palestinian exclave. These demands have not been accepted by the Israeli side.

According to US officials who are familiar with the ongoing negotiations, the Biden administration is becoming increasingly skeptical that a comprehensive ceasefire agreement can be reached between Israel and Hamas under the current circumstances.

The American plan, if it is ever agreed upon, is comprised of three phases. In the initial phase, hostilities are suspended for a period of six weeks, during which time Israeli troops are to withdraw from populated areas of Gaza and hostages and Palestinian prisoners are to be released. In the second phase, Israel and Hamas must endeavour to negotiate a cessation of all hostilities and the release of the remaining hostages. Finally, the third phase would entail the reconstruction of Gaza.

While Israel and Hamas have generally concurred on the terms of the initial phase of the conflict, they have been unable to reach an agreement on the formal cessation of hostilities.

Hamas has stated that it will not sign any part of the agreement, including the initial ceasefire, unless Israel agrees to its demands. In essence, Hamas has issued an ultimatum that is either wholly accepted or wholly rejected, a stance that is unlikely to be accepted by Israel. Neither party has demonstrated any inclination to make concessions. This is the reason why the White House is concerned about the likelihood of continued hostilities for several more months.

"An agreement has been reached to continue negotiations for a period of six weeks." At the very least, the parties would have been able to agree to a ceasefire. "The result of this will be continued bargaining and a delayed ceasefire, which is what we are disappointed about," he added.

The situation is liable to give rise to further complications in the field of humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian representatives have indicated that they are unable to provide effective assistance to the Gazan population without a cessation of hostilities. It is imperative that a ceasefire be implemented in order to guarantee that those in need of food and medical care have continued access to these essential resources.

 A spokesman for one of the largest aid groups working in the Gaza Strip asserted that the administration has been exerting considerable effort to persuade Israel and Hamas to reach an agreement. "However, it appears that the situation has reached a standstill for the time being."

The United States Washing Hands Off?

Since the beginning of the year, the United States has become increasingly sceptical about the possibility of swiftly concluding the conflict. The objective was to persuade Israel and Hamas to agree to a six-week ceasefire as a preliminary step. Such an outcome would result in the release of numerous hostages and facilitate more favourable conditions for the distribution of humanitarian aid in Gaza, thereby averting the potential occurrence of a famine.

The White House anticipates that even if Hamas and Israel reach a short-term ceasefire agreement, there is a high probability that it will collapse.

Senior officials undertook a diplomatic mission to Israel and Doha with the objective of identifying a solution. The group has now been publicly accused of obstructing peace.

Hamas has submitted its proposed amendments to the three-stage agreement. Some of the proposed amendments are acceptable, while others are not, according to Washington.

The precise nature of Israel's agreement and the specific changes that Hamas is seeking to implement in the current review of the deal have not been made public. It seems unlikely that the two parties will be able to resolve their differences in a timely manner.

It appears that the current White House administration's calculations to arrive at the presidential elections in November with a concrete result – in the form of a peace deal between Hamas and Israel – have not materialised. However, Netanyahu's decision to maintain his cabinet until he has full control of Gaza may be justified. With regard to the question of how to proceed, it is evident that Netanyahu is not accustomed to dealing with problems as they arise.