In a surprising turn of events, a prominent member of Israel’s war cabinet, Gadi Eisenkot, has accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of misleading the public about the country’s military objectives in Gaza. Eisenkot, whose son tragically lost his life fighting in Gaza, stated that those advocating for the “absolute defeat” of Hamas were not being truthful. This accusation comes after Netanyahu’s public rejection of the US’s push for a future Palestinian state, as well as his pledge to continue the offensive until “complete victory” is achieved.
The retired general also criticized Netanyahu for his failure to protect the country on October 7th and called for fresh elections, citing a lack of trust in Israel’s current leadership. These developments have further exacerbated the tensions within the Israeli cabinet, with reports of strained relations between the prime minister and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. Simultaneously, the divide between Israel and its Western allies continues to widen as a consequence of Netanyahu’s remarks on Palestinian statehood.
Netanyahu’s refusal to support a Palestinian state is not surprising, given his long-standing opposition to its establishment. He has consistently resisted such a solution throughout his career, even boasting about preventing its formation just last month. By rejecting the Biden Administration’s stance on this issue, Netanyahu further isolates himself internationally, particularly as the death toll in Gaza rises above 25,000 according to the Hamas-run health ministry.
The United States has repeatedly attempted to influence Israel’s military strategy during this conflict, advocating for more targeted attacks in Gaza instead of indiscriminate air strikes. They have also urged the postponement or abandonment of a ground invasion and called for meaningful negotiations towards a two-state solution. However, these appeals have been largely dismissed by Netanyahu, frustrating certain circles within the US who expected greater leverage from President Biden’s support for Israel. Amidst the escalating death toll, Israel’s allies are hopeful that reviving the dormant two-state plan may pave the way towards lasting peace.
Regrettably, Netanyahu’s recent comments indicate a contrary objective, seemingly aligning himself with a potential future administration led by Donald Trump. This move may serve to energize his pro-Israel supporters in an election year in the US. Domestically, Netanyahu, who has become increasingly unpopular, is relying on the support of the far-right to bolster his government. Recent polling data reveals that only 15% of Israelis are in favor of him retaining his position after the war. While the majority of Israelis still support military action against Hamas, they now prioritize the safe return of the remaining hostages over the daunting goal of eradicating Hamas entirely.
Furthermore, Netanyahu’s statements rejecting the idea of a future Palestinian state also undermine the attempts of Arab nations to mediate in the conflict. Saudi Arabia, for instance, has offered to normalize ties with Israel as part of a ceasefire agreement that includes the establishment of a two-state solution. However, the Israeli prime minister has seemingly gambled his political survival on maintaining a hard-line anti-Palestinian stance.
Netanyahu can no longer claim the title of “Mr. Security” after the worst attacks in Israeli history occurred under his watch. Instead, he now presents himself as “Mr. No Independent Palestine,” hoping to align with the prevailing public sentiment that, despite growing disenchantment with the prime minister, remains too traumatized to contemplate a Palestinian state as a neighboring entity.
As the tensions within the Israeli cabinet persist and the divide between Israel and its Western allies deepens, the future for a peaceful resolution to the conflict remains uncertain. Proponents of a two-state solution and advocates for greater international cooperation in tackling the crisis face significant obstacles in light of Netanyahu’s defiant stance. The situation calls for careful consideration and diplomatic finesse to navigate the treacherous path towards lasting peace in the region.
