Trump’s Gaza Plan Tests The Survival Of Israel’s Far-Right Government – OpEd
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has embraced a US-backed Gaza peace proposal that offers a ceasefire, hostage exchanges, phased Israeli withdrawal from parts of Gaza, and international supervision. The plan, framed in roughly 20–21 points, was negotiated with Washington and presented as an urgent route out of a devastating war. Yet its modest concessions to Palestinians have exposed deep fissures inside Israel’s governing bloc.
At its core the proposal aims to end active hostilities and allow a scaled humanitarian response. It couples a ceasefire and prisoner-for-hostage swaps with promises of reconstruction aid and a timeline for Israeli forces to pull back from some Gaza areas. It also calls for measures to limit Hamas’s military capabilities and envisages temporary international arrangements for Gaza’s security and administration. These elements are designed to offer immediate relief while leaving longer political questions for later.
Netanyahu’s public endorsement of the plan is calculated. He faces intense international pressure over civilian losses in Gaza and growing diplomatic isolation. By aligning with a US initiative he seeks to regain leverage with Western partners and to show that Israel is working toward a credible exit from the war. Domestically, he is betting the plan can shore up a fractured image and blunt criticism ahead of looming political tests.
But the Israeli coalition that keeps him in power is deeply unstable. Several of Netanyahu’s partners are hard-line, nationalist and settler-aligned parties that oppose any concession they see as empowering Palestinians. Ministers and party leaders have loudly rejected even limited steps toward political recognition or territorial rollback. Some have warned they will resign rather than accept arrangements they view as surrender. That threat puts Netanyahu in a narrow political no-man’s-land: accept the US plan and risk losing his parliamentary majority, or reject it and face international fallout.
The far right’s objections are predictable but consequential. Their core demands remain the military defeat of Hamas, retention of maximum security control, and expansion of Israeli sovereignty in the West Bank. For these actors, any plan that contemplates phased withdrawal, international oversight, or steps that could enable Palestinian governance is unacceptable. Their influence over security and justice ministries also gives them tools to sabotage implementation. The coalition’s internal discipline is weak; defections or ministerial resignations could trigger either a government collapse or paralysis.
From a Palestinian perspective the plan is both opportunity and insult. The inclusion of humanitarian aid, a ceasefire, and prisoner exchanges addresses urgent needs. Some Palestinian institutions and regional states welcomed the proposal as a potential path to relief and a halt to mass casualties. Yet the plan does not create a clear political horizon for Palestinian self-determination. It leaves the West Bank largely unaddressed, links Gaza’s future to disarmament demands, and postpones core questions about statehood, borders and rights. For many Palestinians the plan therefore looks like a partial relief measure rather than a roadmap to justice.
Regionally the reaction is mixed. Egypt, Qatar and Turkey appear to be working behind the scenes to persuade Hamas to accept aspects of the deal, mindful that continued fighting risks wider instability. Western capitals expressed guarded support while warning that the plan must protect Palestinian rights and avoid displacement. Several European governments signaled unease at the plan’s vagueness on political outcomes and on who will govern Gaza in the interim. This diplomatic ambivalence further complicates Netanyahu’s calculations: international approval does not guarantee domestic acquiescence.
Practical obstacles also loom. Implementation would require Israeli forces to actually withdraw from populated areas while ensuring humanitarian access. It would demand credible guarantees that civilian aid reaches those in need rather than being captured by irresponsible actors. It would require a framework to monitor any disarmament commitments without creating a new occupying or administrative arrangement that undermines Palestinian agency. Even if a deal is signed, the institutional capacity to deliver these technical elements is weak on all sides. Independent international monitoring will be necessary but politically contested.
Politically, Netanyahu faces a stark choice. He can attempt to impose the plan and hope that his government survives defections and public anger among nationalist voters. Or he can bow to hard-line partners and forfeit the diplomatic gains the plan offers. Either path carries heavy costs. A coalition rupture would likely produce fresh elections and prolong political instability while blocking reconstruction and relief. Acceptance without full implementation would deepen Palestinian mistrust and could provoke renewed violence.
For Palestinians, the crucial test is whether international pressure and regional mediation can translate temporary relief into durable rights. A ceasefire that simply freezes the status quo will not end the dispossession many Palestinians describe. Any sustainable peace requires addressing displacement, sovereignty and equal rights — issues the current plan treats only partially or indirectly. Without those broader political steps, relief risks becoming a bandage on a deeper wound.
Netanyahu’s embrace of the US proposal may offer a brief diplomatic lifeline. Yet it is unlikely to resolve the fundamental contradiction at the center of his rule: he depends on far-right partners who reject the minimal concessions the plan offers. That contradiction makes the coalition’s survival precarious. Netanyahu’s political manoeuvring cannot conceal the fact that Hamas’s resilience has forced Israel and its allies to consider concessions they long resisted, exposing the weakness of his far-right coalition and the limits of Israel’s military power in Gaza.
Like what you read?
Please consider supporting Eurasia Review. Thank you for your consideration!