Mass demonstrations in Israel have begun to point fingers at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the hostages held by Hamas, a situation that has become increasingly perplexing after some turbulent days there.
Netanyahu continues to be unwavering in his opposition to reaching a deal with Hamas for the victims ‘ release despite growing domestic and international pressure.
Netanyahu is accused of deliberately trying to stifle any possible agreement by reports in Zionist and international media. But despite all that open outcry, Netanyahu’s grip on power appears to be as strong as always.
The shock wonder attack by Hamas on Israel almost a year ago severely weakened Netanyahu’s and his governing coalition‘s standing. The government’s insufficient response to the attack, the conflict’s length, and the ability to secure the release of all surviving hostages weakened public confidence in Netanyahu and his acquaintances. In fact, some people anticipated that the state would be destroyed within the first few days following the attack.
However, opposition parties have not been allowed to socially capitalize on the condition despite the opposition party’s generally low approval ratings of Netanyahu and his government.
Contrary to popular belief that the illiberal, spiritual, and ultra-nationalist objective supported by Netanyahu and his alliance has significantly weakened Israeli social cohesion and played a major part in Hamas ‘ decision to launch the attack, the government has since resumed its efforts to veer clear of it.
The causes now shaping Israel’s political environment are not just a fight between Netanyahu’s conventional partnership and a more liberal criticism, nor one between hawks and doves, or pro-war and anti-war constituencies.
As a professor of Israel’s traditions, history and politics, I believe it’s much more complicated.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that while he is “willing to make a deal,” he wo n’t go down the same as Hamas and free the remaining 101 hostages.
Vilification of Palestinians
The majority of Israelis have a strong suspicion in Netanyahu and his government, and they also think that continuing the floor military procedure in the Gaza Strip, as Netanyahu advises, could endanger the lives of the hostages.
Therefore, most Israelis support a offer to transfer the captives, to be achieved by agreeing to a cease-fire or even a handover from Gaza.
But, it seems as though Israeli Jews share Netanyahu’s view that the ultimate goal of the war is to totally eradicate Hamas and not to have the victims, and that Israel is most likely to do this with the progression of the conflict.
In order to accomplish this, they think Israel may never abide by international law. A majority of Israeli military and other surveillance officials should be disciplined harshly rather than facing criminal charges, according to a majority of respondents.
Thus, it appears that Israeli Jews ‘ opposition to the continuation of the Gaza war and the rise of Jewish violence in the West Bank is not due to their concern for Israeli suffering. Instead, they object out of concern that it will threaten the life of the still-detained victims.
Shared view
The distinction between the ruling coalition and many of its critics is less about the view, strategy, tactics, or the ethics of the actions taken in Gaza, but more about an analysis of Netanyahu’s character and the achievement of his case in times of crisis.
Yair Lapid, leader of the opposition, spoke about Netanyahu quite harshly in a new interview:” The only thing he cares about is staying in strength. He’s been in power for very long. He’s focused solely on energy and not on doing good.
The majority of Israelis have lost their support due to the high human death toll from Hamas ‘ strike, the failure to achieve a swift, decisive victory, or even a sort of one.
If elections were held now, Netanyahu and his friends would be unable to type a state. However, there are slim chances of premature elections because the present coalition has little interest in holding fresh elections, and the majority of its members in congress prevent the opposition from imposing one. That implies that any attempt to hold an early election would require the backing of at least some alliance people.
The likelihood that they will be able to form the following federal compels the events in Netanyahu’s alliance to unite and radically advance their goals.
The partnership members insist that their needs should be taken into account then, despite the public protest, economic costs, or international stress, in addition to intensifying their efforts to maintain their foundation. By the time votes are ultimately held in October 2026, they appear to have succeeded in getting voters to turn up to supporting them.
Additionally, they see the conflict as an option. The ruling coalition has a pretext to implement illiberal measures that undermine basic liberties, including the right to free speech, protest, and occupation, as evidenced by the present state of emergency caused by the ongoing conflict.
This is especially true for non-Jewish citizens of the state. The ruling partnership can pass laws and operational measures that originally faced far greater people and lawful opposition because of the grave security concerns raised by the conflict and the fact that many of its critics actually share its worldview.
Hold on power is secure
It is no wonder, then, that the most radical elements in Netanyahu’s coalition, who explicitly promote racism, ethnic cleansing and genocide, have gained disproportionate influence over the government, coalition and the state as a whole.
Netanyahu and his government are unpopular, but their hold on power is secure. They enact policies that many Israeli Jews, though not Israeli Palestinians, support, whether implicitly or explicitly.
Internal tensions within Netanyahu’s coalition — such as those between the ultra-Orthodox and ultra-nationalist factions — could potentially bring it down. However, each of those parties has a stake in its survival.
A general and unrestrained strike supported by the Histadrut, which represents the majority of Israel’s labor organizations, as well as by employers and the industrial and financial sector as a whole, a de facto or de jure military coup with the support of all Israeli military, security, and intelligence heads, or a military and financial embargo against Israel, is what I believe only an extraordinary event could accomplish.
Given the extraordinary nature of these events, they are very unlikely.
Shai P Ginsburg is associate professor and chair, Department of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Duke University
The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.