Listen to the article
After nearly 6 months of war in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems to be caught between internal dissent and international pressure as he fights for his survival. The war he is waging against Hamas has gradually lost its legitimacy in the eyes of the international community, as civilian casualties mount without significant progress against Hamas’ military infrastructure.
On Monday, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution demanding “an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan” in Gaza, with 14 votes in favor and a notable abstention from the United States. Widely hailed by the international community, this vote reflects Israel’s increasing isolation in the face of mounting civilian casualties in Gaza. In particular, the US abstention signals ongoing growing tensions between the two countries, with Washington vehemently opposed to an Israeli military offensive against Rafah.
The international opinion, which largely expressed support for Israel after the October 7 attack, is now increasingly in solidarity with the Palestinians due to the excessively heavy human toll of Tel Aviv’s war against Hamas. In this same perspective, it fears the offensive against Rafah, the last refuge for Gazans, which Netanyahu promised to carry out in order to “eliminate” the Palestinian jihadist group. This operation is also rejected by Egypt, which refuses to host Gazan refugees on its soil.
Growing Tensions With the United States
The United States, a traditional supporter of Israel, seems to be increasingly impatient with Netanyahu who is inclined towards war, a strategy that risks regionalizing the conflict. After attempting to reason with the Israeli Prime Minister and secure a new agreement on hostages, American diplomacy raised the stakes by not vetoing the UN resolution.
While this resolution may not have a real impact on Israeli government decisions, the absence of an American veto demonstrates an undeniable shift in US policy towards its Israeli ally. The White House now aims to quickly reach an agreement on the release of hostages and rejects any operation in Rafah.
This is certainly not the first time that Washington has taken a firm stance against the Israeli state. A month earlier, fearing that the conflict would spread to the West Bank, the US administration imposed sanctions on several Israeli settlers, accusing them of inflaming tensions.
Engaged in the presidential race, US President Joe Biden is also trying to limit the conflict to avoid negative repercussions on his candidacy. Within his own party, many voices are already rising in support of Palestinians. Additionally, the increasingly frequent additional aids granted to Israel are sparking more opposition.
The likelihood of drastic reductions in US support for Israel, both in terms of military aid and political support, remains low as the interests of the two countries are intertwined. Washington could eventually favor a political change in Israel or, at the very least, increase pressure on Netanyahu to sign an agreement on hostages with Hamas and limit his offensive on Gaza.
Hostages Before Total Victory
Already weakened by three corruption scandals and his highly contested judicial reform, Benjamin Netanyahu is also criticized in his country for his handling of the October 7 attack and the subsequent Gaza offensive.
Beyond the shock of the Hamas attack, Israeli public opinion now seems to prioritize the release of hostages over a “total victory” against the Islamist movement. Especially as the families of the hostages continue to pressure the government by organizing regular demonstrations. According to a poll published at the end of February by the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI), only 38.3% of Israelis consider a victory against Hamas “very” or “moderately” likely.
On the other hand, the Israeli opposition is calling for early elections, a solution that Netanyahu vehemently rejects. Indeed, another survey published on March 12 by the Israeli news outlet Channel 12 reveals that the anti-Netanyahu bloc would garner 74 seats out of 120 in the Knesset against 46 seats for a coalition led by Netanyahu and 69 if this alliance were led by Benny Gantz. A defeat in the elections would force Benjamin Netanyahu to be held accountable before the law, without benefiting from the aura of a possible victory in Gaza.
Faced with these pressures, he could initially accept an agreement with Hamas for the release of hostages. However, this scenario could explode the coalition that keeps Netanyahu in power. Israeli ministers of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and Finance, Bezalel Smotrich, threaten to leave the government if the war ends without eliminating Hamas. This warning also applies in the event of a ceasefire agreement for the release of hostages, which would be too favorable to the Islamist movement.
Opening a Northern Front as a Solution?
Under pressure both internationally and internally, Netanyahu is backed into a corner. If he continues his offensive in Rafah, he preserves his coalition and thus his political future, but he will face the wrath of his American ally and the international community. If he signs an agreement for the release of hostages with Hamas, he risks shattering his coalition and having to take responsibility for his actions, especially regarding October 7, the military operation that Israel could not prevent.
However, Netanyahu could consider a third option by opening another front to the north. An offensive towards southern Lebanon that would not diminish his popularity among the Israeli population and would force the United States to revise their objectives. Indeed, according to a survey recently published by the Israel Democracy Institute, nearly 70% of the Israeli population believes that a war with Hezbollah is inevitable.
By prolonging the war, Netanyahu would thus safeguard his position, while hoping to make the Israeli population forget his various shortcomings. He would also force the United States to extend their support due to their opposition to the Iranian axis. All of this, of course, at the expense of civilian populations.
