The ongoing ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas, led for months by Qatar and Egypt, have entered a critical phase following the political crisis rocking Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition. The Israeli government is under fire every time a hypothetical compromise approaches, as the most radical and orthodox factions reject any idea of discussions with Hamas, and the Palestinians in general. Recently, the withdrawal of the ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism (UTJ) and Shas has put the Israeli government on the spot, reducing its majority to 50 seats, compared to the necessary 61, and raising the prospect of acute political instability in the coming weeks. Will the Jewish state risk calling elections?
This situation has direct consequences for diplomatic discussions. On the one hand, Netanyahu, now in a weak position, sees his room for maneuver considerably reduced: he is caught between the demands of the ultra-Orthodox parties, who are demanding guarantees on military exemptions for yeshiva students (Talmudic schools), and pressure from his far-right allies, who are making their support conditional on the refusal of any compromise with Hamas. This domestic context is pushing him to adopt a wait-and-see, even intransigent, stance to avoid appearing to be yielding to external pressure—which could precipitate the loss of his last parliamentary supporters. Public opinion has viewed this exemption issue with suspicion from the start, as the country is at war and everyone must contribute to the war effort.
For the Qatari and Egyptian mediators, this political fragility in Jerusalem is a major source of concern. Their objective remains the rapid conclusion of an agreement that will defuse the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza, but also contain a broader regional risk. However, if the Israeli government were to collapse, these already complex negotiations would enter a zone of total uncertainty. The dissolution of the government would postpone any significant decision by several months, until the formation of a new coalition following early elections. This would open the door to a prolonged military escalation and exacerbate tensions on the Egyptian border and in Palestinian territory. Needless to say, the issue of the release of Israeli hostages and an end to the war and deaths in Gaza have been postponed once again!
Furthermore, Doha and Cairo fear that if Netanyahu were to fall, the Israeli political scene would be reshaped around even more radical figures, less inclined to compromise, or even hostile to the traditional mediators of Qatar and Egypt. The loss of a recognized interlocutor, even a weakened one like Netanyahu, would complicate their role as facilitator and could put an end to weeks of laborious talks. Finally, the aforementioned mediators are now convinced that this internal Israeli crisis weakens the credibility of any promises or commitments Israel might make in an agreement. A government on the verge of collapse has neither the legitimacy nor the political capacity to impose a lasting ceasefire in the face of the demands of its own fractured coalition and an Israeli public opinion more polarized than ever: Netanyahu’s unpopularity but also the fear of sliding once again into a zone of political turbulence that is clearly turning against the Jewish state and its population. Whether one likes the current Prime Minister or not, his fall risks leading to even worse things in Israel and Gaza.
