Israeli PM is not interested in a ceasefire — full stop

Some of us have never been fooled by him, not when he gave a speech all those years ago in support of a two-state solution, not when he fashioned himself as the defender of Israel, not when he made his declaration that the interests of the country came before his own interests and, more recently, that he aspires to reaching a ceasefire deal in the war with Hamas.

Netanyahu is at the stage of his political life, hopefully the final stage, when he can fool only those who choose to be fooled. The rest fully realize that the war in Gaza, and possibly an even more devastating war with Hezbollah, have become his insurance policy for hanging on to power. They complement his and his far-right coalition’s relentless attack on the foundations of Israel’s democratic system, in which the highest priority is given to compromising the independence of the judiciary. This attack was set in motion well before Oct. 7 and is still continuing.

The dual aim of this “strategy” is to perpetuate Netanyahu’s hold on power and, by that, to also ensure that, whatever the outcome of his corruption trial, he will never end up in jail. These aims have become two sides of the same coin, to the detriment of both the country and the region’s well-being.

It is hard to tell whether Netanyahu can actually grasp the difference between the good of the country and what serves him and his family best, but very few are in any doubt that he is motivated by the latter rather than the former. A prime and tragic example of this is that, at every stage over the last few months when there has appeared to be some progress in the ceasefire negotiations with Hamas — and with that the release of the hostages — new information magically comes to light and, under pressure from the far-right extremists in his coalition, Netanyahu presents new demands that derail or at least postpone a positive conclusion to the negotiations.

Undeniably, these are complex and tough negotiations and bargaining between a state and a nonstate actor makes them extra complicated. Moreover, in this case, negotiations are taking place in the midst of a war that continues to inflict enormous suffering and consequently makes the negotiations highly emotive, with zero trust between the two sides, and compounds the obstacles to reaching a deal. Hence, the role of the mediators, whether that is the US, Qatar or Egypt, is all the more important, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that they have become exasperated and frustrated by the intransigence of both sides.

But as time goes by, Hamas, perhaps due to political and military pressure, seems to be showing more flexibility, while it is Netanyahu who consistently derails hopes of a deal by making new demands and continuing to be evasive. When Hamas recently surprised his government by agreeing in broad terms to the Joe Biden-Netanyahu ceasefire proposal, Israeli negotiators on behalf of the PM hardened their position and did it very publicly, well aware that in such complex negotiations, should any compromise become public, it would undermine the reaching of a ceasefire agreement. But they spun the situation in order to blame the other side and even the mediators, and promptly reneged on previous understandings.

For instance, one such new demand was Netanyahu’s insistence on preventing any armed Palestinians from returning to the northern Gaza Strip and on Israeli troops remaining in place along the Philadelphi Route on the border with Egypt. This would entail at least a partial occupation of the Gaza Strip, a proposal that was bound to be rejected.

Hamas’ leadership knows how Israel operates and is under no illusion that, even should a ceasefire be agreed, the long arm of its security forces will go after them to further avenge the Oct. 7 atrocities. Hence, Hamas’ call for a permanent ceasefire is logical from its leaders’ perspective of biding their time and hoping for the best. It is their insurance policy, although not necessarily a reassuring one.
Netanyahu’s insistence that Israel will only end its war in Gaza when all its objectives have been achieved is as good as telling Hamas that, following the release of the hostages, Israel will retain a free hand to continue the war with no commitment to any “day-after” political solution, leaving them no bandwidth to agree to a ceasefire, let alone peace with the Palestinians.

Sources close to the Israeli negotiators have recently said that “there’s a deal with a real chance of implementation,” but in the same breath adding that a “political consideration” could stall such a deal. Some far-right partners in Netanyahu’s coalition have indicated that they may quit the government if the war ends before Hamas surrenders. Their departure from the coalition would most likely spell the end of Netanyahu’s premiership.

To be sure, there is an intrinsic logical contradiction in the argument of those in the Israeli government who oppose a deal. On the one hand, they argue that only military pressure on Hamas will bring the hostages home, but whenever Hamas agrees to a deal, they do everything they can to avert such a possibility. This is because they want to continue the war until the objective of destroying this Islamist movement is achieved and so, by implication, they do not prioritize the release of the hostages.

More than nine months into the war, Hamas’ military capabilities have been considerably hampered, but at the same time the declared Israeli aim of bringing back the hostages, hopefully with most of them alive, is increasingly at risk. It is not surprising, then, that the families of the hostages and their supporters are intensifying their protests on the streets, in the media and in the corridors of the Knesset. They know what we have all suspected for months: that Netanyahu’s first and probably only priority is keeping the coalition together and preventing a state inquest into the failures of Oct. 7 and its aftermath.

This situation will not change until a critical and politically active mass within Israel internalizes that, as long as Netanyahu remains in power and relies on the support of the religious ultra-right, an end to the war in Gaza, with the return of the hostages, will remain a distant possibility.

• Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the Middle East and North Africa Program at international affairs think tank Chatham House.
X: @YMekelberg