Could the war’s end unleash a crisis within Israel’s political establishment?

Despite months of negotiations, countless documents exchanged, and shuttle diplomacy stretching from Cairo to Doha to Washington and back, the war in Gaza—now entering its 22nd month—shows no signs of resolution. The question looms larger than ever: Why has Israel been unable to bring this war, which began on October 7, 2023, to a definitive close?

As Israel plunged deeper into its military campaign, diplomatic efforts began to sketch out visions for what many called “the day after”—a post-war Gaza. Yet none of these proposals have materialised into a viable plan. Israel lacks a realistic, achievable, and regionally or internationally acceptable framework for governing Gaza once the fighting stops. Even within Israeli society, there is no consensus on what a post-war Gaza should look like.

Meron Rapaport, an Israeli journalist and analyst, points to a fundamental political constraint:

“Netanyahu knows that any kind of Palestinian government in Gaza—away from Hamas—has to be linked one way or another to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, which is unacceptable to him.” Rapaport adds: “Any link between Gaza and the West Bank rings the bell of a Palestinian state or entity, and that’s a red line for Netanyahu.”

The January 2025 ceasefire revealed a reality that caught both Israel and much of the international community off guard: Hamas retained a formidable grip on Gaza. Its policing presence was visible and organized, and its control over territory and public life remained intact. During the hostage release ceremonies, Hamas and its coalition of resistance factions staged public displays of authority that starkly contradicted Israeli claims of having dismantled the group’s infrastructure.

Rapaport underscores the ideological dimension driving Israel’s current leadership:

“Netanyahu, along with key figures in his coalition like Ben Gvir and Smotrich, believe this is a golden opportunity given by God to finish the Palestinian presence in Gaza once and for all—to expel all Palestinians and make Gaza an example for what’s coming next in the West Bank.” He concludes starkly: “There is no ‘day after’ in their vision—only Israel.”

Aida Touma-Suleiman, an Arab member of the Israeli Knesset, echoes this concern from within the political establishment:

“They want to forcibly push all Palestinians in Gaza to the far south of the Strip, leaving them in tents, while imposing full Israeli occupation over the north and other parts of Gaza—that is the vision,” she told me. “They view Gaza as part of the land of Greater Israel. This is a far-right ideological government.”

Even after nearly two years of relentless military operations, the goal of unseating Hamas appears increasingly unattainable. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government faces a strategic impasse: any attempt to install a pro-Israel local administration with security oversight is not only unfeasible—it risks exposing the hollowness of Israel’s claimed military victory. In this context, ending the war could paradoxically become a trap, revealing the limits of Israel’s power and the unresolved nature of its objectives.

Israel is now finalizing its sweeping plan to seize control of Gaza City—an operation that entails a full military occupation and the forced displacement of nearly one million civilians to the south. The stated objective: to purge the city entirely of Hamas militants, a goal Israel has been desperately pursuing for nearly 22 months of intensive fighting, with no clear indication that it is any closer to achieving it. In a recent interview with Sky News Australia, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the imminent takeover and whether he would proceed even after Hamas accepted a ceasefire proposal brokered by mediators:

“We are going to do that anyway,” he said. “That was never a question. We are not going to leave Hamas there. And as President Trump said, Hamas has to disappear from Gaza.”

From the start, Israel has tied the end of the war to a clear victory over Hamas—one it has yet to achieve. Ceasefire and hostage talks have served less as genuine pathways to peace and more as tactical pauses, buying time for a military goal that remains out of reach.

The second major obstacle preventing Israel’s leadership from ending the war in Gaza is the political reckoning that awaits. The unprecedented breach of October 7—and the devastating aftermath—has inflicted a blow that may cost Netanyahu and his allies their entire political careers, if not more.

Just before the attack, Netanyahu was already locked in a fierce internal battle to push through controversial judicial reforms—measures widely criticized for undermining democratic checks and balances and consolidating power in ways that echoed authoritarian tendencies seen elsewhere in the region. These reforms are not merely political manoeuvres; they function as a shield, designed to protect Netanyahu from looming legal challenges tied to his conduct as prime minister.

The judicial reform package passed the Knesset in March and now awaits implementation following the next parliamentary elections set primary for October 2026.

“The war on Gaza was such a golden opportunity for Netanyahu to advance the controversial reforms while most eyes and ears were focused on the war and the hostages,” said Meron Rapaport.

Talking about general elections in Israel after the war in Gaza, member of Knesset Aida Touma-Sulieman said, “I believe Netanyahu will do whatever it takes to prevent this elections from happening, Netanyahu is losing popularity, his allies in the coalition are also fearing they may not make it to the next Knesset if they don’t exceed the  threshold.” She added, “I am expecting waves of violence against Jewish voters and even Arab voter in Israel to make sure the far right wins.”

The complexity of the political and ideological landscape within Israel’s leadership makes ending the war in Gaza not only difficult—but fundamentally undesirable for those in power. For many, the humanitarian toll, the loss of life, and the devastation on the ground are weighed against a perceived greater cost: the collapse of political agendas, ideological visions, and personal careers. In this calculus, the war persists—not because it must, but because its continuation serves interests that transcend the battlefield.

The war on Gaza persists not only as a military and human tragedy that is unprecedented but as a reflection of deep political and ideological divides within Israel itself. Its ultimate resolution remains uncertain, and its consequences would reshape the region and Israel’s own future.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.