Israel divided: parties torn between war, hostages, and the Gaza uncertainty

Reading time: 7 min.

By Alexia Angeli

The breakdown of the ceasefire in Gaza has laid bare the deep ideological fractures within Israeli politics. As the far-right dictates the military agenda, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finds himself caught between radical coalition partners and mounting international pressure. To maintain his grip on power, he has reignited the offensive. Meanwhile, the opposition remains fragmented, and Israeli public opinion is increasingly radicalised.

 

Following months of devastating conflict in the Gaza Strip, a two-phase deal brokered between Israel and Hamas in January briefly raised hopes of a truce. The first phase involved a hostage exchange and a temporary halt to hostilities. But the fragile ceasefire quickly unravelled. By late March, Israel had resumed its military operations, citing the need to dismantle Hamas’s infrastructure. Behind this decision, however, lies a deeper story—one of internal political strife and competing visions for what should constitute the “end of the war.”

The far-right’s grip on power

Benjamin Netanyahu’s current coalition is the most hardline in Israel’s history, with key roles held by Bezalel Smotrich (Finance Minister) and Itamar Ben-Gvir (National Security Minister) — both settlers in the occupied West Bank and staunch advocates of an uncompromising stance toward the Palestinians. During the 2022 elections, their bloc delivered historic gains for the far-right, earning them significant influence in government. Both have openly called for the reoccupation of Gaza, the reestablishment of Israeli settlements, and the “encouragement” of Palestinian emigration. Their ambitions extend beyond military objectives—they envision a deeply ideological project rooted in religious nationalism.

Despite their shared goals, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are rivals. Smotrich sees himself as a “right-wing Leninist”; Ben-Gvir, on the other hand, is a charismatic populist, shaped by the teachings of extremist rabbi Meir Kahane, whose party once advocated for the complete expulsion of Arabs from Israel. Ben-Gvir, who once threatened Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin shortly before his assassination in 1995, has a history of convictions for inciting racial hatred and supporting terrorism. Yet by 2022, he had managed to rehabilitate his public image enough to enter the Knesset and take control of the national police.

During cabinet debates on the ceasefire, Smotrich argued that the concession of minimal humanitarian aid into Gaza was necessary to maintain support from allies in the UN Security Council and continue the war effort. Ben-Gvir fiercely opposed this plan; aiming to exploit the discontent of the far-right base, he accused Smotrich of capitulating and leaked selective details of the discussions to the media.

Netanyahu’s tightrope

Despite their infighting, both wings of the far-right — Smotrich’s ideological flank and Ben-Gvir’s populist bloc — are essential to Netanyahu’s political survival. He brought these once-marginal figures to the forefront, empowering radical parties that now hold sway over much of his policy agenda. In exchange, he has adopted significant parts of their anti-democratic platform, including efforts to undermine the judiciary.

About Gaza, Netanyahu has attempted to appear more restrained than his allies, but fears of a coalition collapse have made him avoid any move that might be interpreted as weakness. When the second phase of the Hamas deal — potentially leading to a full cessation of hostilities — emerged in January, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir threatened to bring down the government. Netanyahu responded by escalating military operations, ensuring the coalition’s survival.

There is also a personal stake: many suspect that Netanyahu is pursuing a “total victory,” as envisioned in the controversial “Operation Gideon’s Chariots” plan, which calls for Hamas’s total defeat and indefinite Israeli control of Gaza, for reasons beyond security. Netanyahu’s goal might be to stay in power and to avoid a corruption trial — something a ceasefire might jeopardise. But this strategy endangers the lives of hostages still held by Hamas and risks drawing Israel into a costly, open-ended occupation.

A weak and complicit opposition

Since the early 1980s, Israel’s left — once led by the Labour Party — has steadily lost ground, weakened by the collapse of the peace process and the trauma of the Second Intifada in 2000-2005. Security fears and demographic shifts have accelerated this decline, with the rise of nationalist-religious, Mizrahi, and Sephardic communities eroding support for the historically Ashkenazi-led left.

The most prominent opposition voice today is Yair Golan, a former IDF general and leader of the leftist Democrats party. In a radio interview, Golan stated that “a sane country doesn’t kill babies as a hobby and doesn’t set the expulsion of a population as a goal” — comments that drew fierce backlash from Netanyahu, President Isaac Herzog, Justice Minister Yariv Levin, and IDF officials, who defended Israel’s actions as lawful and necessary for national security.

Yet even Golan and the broader centre-left have shown moral and political weakness. Many supported U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposal to forcibly relocate Gaza’s population to Egypt or Jordan and rebuild the Strip as a “Middle East Riviera” under U.S. control. While Golan called the plan unrealistic, he stopped short of condemning it on ethical grounds. Centrist leaders like Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid praised the idea as “creative” and “positive for Israel.”

Such endorsements reflect a long-standing consensus within Israeli politics, across party lines, that forced population transfers could be a legitimate solution to the Gaza question. Since the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023, public hostility toward Palestinians has grown, even among moderates.

In contrast, marginal left-wing parties like Meretz and other progressives have offered more principled opposition. They’ve condemned both the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the government’s lack of a post-war strategy. Some lawmakers have joined anti-war protests in Tel Aviv and called for a new peace process — moves that have led to accusations of defeatism or even sympathy with Hamas.

A radicalised public opinion

Israeli society has undergone a profound rightward shift: 62% of Israelis now identify as right-wing, and only 12% as left-wing. Among young people aged 15 to 24, the number identifying as right-wing jumps to 73%. This trend is driven by demographic factors (settlers and ultra-Orthodox communities have high birth rates) and a deeply militarised political culture rooted in the state’s founding. Ideas that were once fringe, such as the forced expulsion of Palestinians, are now mainstream. A recent poll found that 82% of Israeli Jews support “emptying” Gaza of its Palestinian population, and 50% even approve of mass killings in the occupied territories.

The October 7 attacks by Hamas only intensified these sentiments. Even some peace activists initially supported the military response. Yet as the war drags on, the failed ceasefire and Netanyahu’s political maneuvering become more evident; therefore, some Israelis are beginning to question the narrative.

There is growing resistance — seen in public protests, open letters, and draft refusals by soldiers, academics, and civil society figures. Criticism is no longer confined to the far-right but now targets the mainstream opposition as well, which many accuse of complicity or cowardice.

In conclusion, Israel’s political landscape is being reshaped by war, ideological division, and international scrutiny. Netanyahu walks a tightrope, balancing the demands of his far-right allies, foreign pressure, and the shifting winds of public opinion. Every decision on Gaza has immediate military consequences and deep political implications.

But as Israel debates its next move, it’s worth remembering the human cost. For Palestinians in Gaza, this is not just about 2023 or Netanyahu’s leadership — it reflects a long history of dispossession and displacement, perpetuated by successive Israeli governments since 1949. The tragedy is ongoing, and with each political manoeuvre, the possibility of peace seems to slip further away.