On Friday morning, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office confirmed that the ceasefire deal with Hamas has been finalised and it would go into effect as scheduled, on Sunday, with the release of the first batch of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners.
Netanyahu, however, faces a daunting challenge in implementing the agreement, evident from the initial resistance to getting the agreement cleared by his cabinet. The deal, negotiated under intense international and domestic pressure, has revealed sharp internal divisions within his ruling coalition and raised questions about his ability to balance conflicting priorities. The debate over the ceasefire underscores the fragility of his government and the ideological divides that shape Israel’s approach to its ongoing conflict with Hamas.
The ceasefire has exposed the rift between Netanyahu and two influential far-right members of his coalition: Itamar Ben-Gvir, leader of the Otzma Yehudit party, and Bezalel Smotrich, head of the Religious Zionism party. Together, these two parties hold substantial sway in the Knesset, with six and seven seats respectively. Both leaders are staunchly opposed to any negotiations with Hamas, viewing the ceasefire as a capitulation to terrorism.
Their opposition has placed Netanyahu in a precarious position. While Ben-Gvir’s potential departure from the coalition would not lead to an immediate collapse of the government, Smotrich’s exit would. Losing Smotrich could leave Netanyahu’s coalition without a majority, severely weakening his ability to govern effectively. This threat has forced Netanyahu to negotiate extensively with Smotrich, seeking either his support or a tempering of his opposition. However, Smotrich’s demands — including a firm commitment to resuming military operations after the ceasefire — complicate efforts to finalise the agreement.
The rift between Netanyahu and his far-right allies reflects broader ideological differences within the government. While Netanyahu has taken a more pragmatic approach, attempting to balance Israel’s security interests with international expectations, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich prioritise military dominance over diplomacy. They advocate for unrelenting military action to decisively defeat Hamas, rejecting any form of ceasefire or peace negotiations.
This hardline stance aligns with the ideological rigidity of their parties, which view concessions to Hamas as unacceptable. Both leaders are willing to escalate the conflict, even at the cost of hostages’ lives, to achieve their objectives. Their position has drawn criticism from moderates within the government and the broader Israeli public, who see the release of hostages as a critical priority.
The proposed ceasefire deal includes the release of 33 Israeli hostages in its first phase, with a total of 98 expected to be freed. In exchange, Israel has agreed to a temporary halt in military operations against Hamas. Netanyahu has emphasised that the ceasefire is a tactical pause, not an end to the conflict, seeking to reassure critics within his coalition.
To address concerns from Smotrich and others, Netanyahu has promised that Israel will maintain its military presence along the Egypt-Gaza border during the ceasefire. This measure is intended to prevent Hamas from rearming or regrouping during the pause in hostilities. However, critics argue that any agreement with Hamas undermines Israel’s security and sends the wrong message to its adversaries.
Netanyahu’s handling of the ceasefire deal is also shaped by significant international pressure, particularly from the United States. The Biden administration has urged Israel to pursue a temporary ceasefire as a demonstration of good faith, stating the need for a balanced approach that considers humanitarian concerns. American officials have framed the ceasefire as a strategic move, arguing that it could strengthen Israel’s position if Hamas violates the agreement. For instance, the intervention of President-elect Donald Trump has played a significant role in shaping Netanyahu’s strategy.
Statements from Trump’s likely defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, and national security adviser, Mike Waltz, suggest that they support Israel’s right to destroy Hamas but are encouraging a ceasefire as a temporary tactic to demonstrate a good-faith effort for peace. This calculated move, in their view, could provide Israel with a stronger justification to resume military operations if Hamas violates the terms of the ceasefire.
Netanyahu appears to be leveraging these assurances to address domestic opposition. Reports suggest he has used stalling tactics to buy time for negotiations with Smotrich and other coalition members. By pointing out that the ceasefire is backed by incoming president Donald Trump, Netanyahu hopes to bolster his case for the agreement’s strategic value.
Netanyahu’s ability to deal with these competing pressures highlights the complexity of his position. Domestically, he must project strength to his right-wing base and appease influential coalition partners. At the same time, he faces mounting public pressure to secure the release of hostages and address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. But many Israelis also view the deal as a concession to Hamas. Netanyahu’s ability to navigate these competing views will be critical to his political survival.
The ceasefire debate also has long-term implications for Netanyahu’s political legacy. As Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, Netanyahu has built his career on projecting strength and stability. However, the divisions within his coalition and the challenges of governing in a polarised environment have raised questions about his ability to lead effectively.
In the coming days, Netanyahu’s ability to secure support for the ceasefire will be a key test of his leadership. If he can navigate the divisions within his coalition and deliver a deal that satisfies both domestic and international stakeholders, he may strengthen his position as a pragmatic and resilient leader. However, failure to achieve consensus could plunge his government into crisis, with far-reaching consequences for Israel’s political and security landscape.