In 2017, Erez Tadmor, one of the two founders of the Im Tirtzu movement, published “Why Do You Vote Right and Get Left,” a nationally best-selling Hebrew-language book that has become a secular Bible for many right-wing intellectuals in Israel.
The title strikes at the heart of critical policy debates surrounding Israel’s national sovereignty, civil bureaucracy, military leadership and many other issues.
For many years this question was answered in the form of a political narrative involving dueling centers of power. On the one hand, the right trying to advance its agenda through democratic control of the Knesset and government, and on the other the left stymying this agenda through old institutions in which it retained control from the Mapai Party days, such as the judicial system and the Israel Defense Forces General Staff.
This political narrative had a physical embodiment in the figure of Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, whom many on the right saw as a shepherd who could lead Israel in the fight against its enemies and hold at bay the powers of the left-wing oligarchy.
With Donald Trump’s reelection to the U.S. presidency on Nov. 5, 2024, many on Israel’s right saw a bright dawn on the horizon. International pressure would be relieved and deep-state bureaucracies were under assault worldwide. The firing of Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on Nov. 5 was perceived as the beginning of the end of the entrenched power in the IDF General Staff.
However, the reversal of the political tide seems not to have come. The incongruence between the bountiful opportunities showered on the Jewish state by the Trump administration and the reality on the ground seems to be exposing cracks in the basic paradigms of Israeli politics.
Fault lines began to emerge in earnest when on Feb. 10, in a fit of moral clarity, Trump issued an ultimatum that many Israelis believed was the only acceptable way of resolving the hostage crisis. Speaking from the Oval Office, the American president expressed dismay at the condition of the hostages being returned from Gaza, saying they “look like Holocaust survivors,” and dissatisfaction with the framework of the ceasefire deal.
“If ALL of the hostages aren’t returned by Saturday 12 o’clock … I would say cancel [the deal] and all bets are off and let hell break out,” said Trump.
‘Trump is right’
Many on Israel’s right were ecstatic. Finally, a U.S. president who spoke the language of the Middle East. Once again, Trump had left behind tried and failed methods and struck out in a new and promising direction. Furthermore, here was an opportunity to leave behind the ceasefire deal, which many on the Israeli right believe was agreed to only at the behest of the Trump administration.
“Trump is right. Return and destroy immediately,” tweeted former Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who resigned in protest over the ceasefire deal.
Israeli Finance Minister Betzalel Smotrich also endorsed Trump’s ultimatum, in the strongest terms.
“Mr. Prime Minister [Netanyahu], I call on you, following such a moral, simple and clear statement by President Trump, to inform Hamas unequivocally: Either all the hostages are released on Saturday, or the gates of hell are opened on them. No electricity, no water, no fuel, no humanitarian aid. Only fire and brimstone from our planes and artillery and tanks, and our heroic fighters,” he said in a video statement.
This sentiment was echoed not only by politicians but also by many prominent right-wing media personalities.
“This is your moment, Prime Minister Netanyahu, to choose between Churchill and Chamberlain,” tweeted prominent entrepreneur and influencer Eli David.
Netanyahu convened the Security Cabinet and deliberated for four hours regarding how to respond. In his first statement on the new development, the prime minister contradicted himself, endorsing Trump’s ultimatum and at the same time rephrasing it by refusing to specify that Jerusalem expected to see “all” the hostages released on Saturday.
The next day, Defense Minister Israel Katz issued a statement full of sharp language about “unleashing hell,” and the “full destruction of Hamas,” but falling short of Trump’s moral clarity.
In the days that followed, a series of Israeli officials spread a wide net of contradictory statements, telling Fox News that they expect “all the hostages released on Saturday,” telling Israel’s Channel 14 that they expected nine to be released, and ultimately making a public statement that the Israeli government was satisfied with the terms of the current ceasefire deal and expected only three hostages to be released.
Many on the right howled their discontent.
“The Israeli government is on the verge of another historic miss. After receiving the backing from President Trump to bring hell on Gaza if Hamas does not release ALL the hostages, the government intends to settle for releasing only three hostages, in a reckless plan that includes releasing hundreds of murderous terrorists from prison while continuing to send fuel and aid to Gaza. A reckless deal, a frightened government,” tweeted Ben-Gvir.
Israel’s decision is “truly problematic,” according to Martin Sherman, founder and CEO of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.
“Israel’s not striking while the iron is hot. We have a golden opportunity to finish the war sooner rather than later,” he told JNS.
Despite clear opposition from its constituency, the government continued with the ceasefire agreement, and as expected only three hostages were released on Feb. 15. Instead of shifting gears, Netanyahu chose to stay on a path that many of his followers find incredibly problematic.
The question therefore remains: What brought Netanyahu to these decisions?
Domestic pressure
The most basic explanation for Netanyahu’s decision is continued international pressure. However, while Israel could still be facing pressure from Europe or Arab partners, this was not a sufficiently satisfactory explanation for the government’s behavior, said Sherman.
An alternative explanation floated by certain right-wing analysts is that Netanyahu broke under domestic rather than international pressure. The claim is that a combination of pressure from the military high command and the judicial system, and the threat of mass protests from the left, forced the prime minister to back away from the moral position of Trump’s ultimatum.
If Netanyahu had stuck to the ultimatum and as a result no more hostages were returned, “this would cause some serious discontent among certain sectors of Israeli society,” said Sherman.
“Netanyahu may be weary of street protests … and seeking to eke out the hostage issue and bring it to a minimum, and in that way remove one of the greatest points of leverage that his opponents have,” he added.
“There’s also a political calculation,” noted David Wurmser, a fellow at the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy and a specialist on American foreign policy.
“[Shas Party chairman] Aryeh Deri and the ultra-Orthodox parties may well have threatened to leave the government if this deal was abandoned while there is still a reasonable expectation to get back hostages alive. Those parties feel very strongly about continuing the deal. This is the significant political pressure that introduces the danger of the collapse of the Israeli government,” he told JNS.
Taboos
In his long career, Netanyahu has violated multiple taboos of the Israeli right. He embraced Yasser Arafat, gave up Hebron in the 1997 Hebron Protocol and the 1998 Wye River agreement, and endorsed a Palestinian state in a speech at Bar-Ilan University in 2009. He gave up over a thousand terrorists, including Yahya Sinwar, in exchange for IDF soldier Gilad Shalit in 2011. He failed to annex Judea and Samaria despite being in power since 2008.
According to Yair Ansbacher, a fellow at the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy, Trump’s ultimatum merely brought to light a problem that has been lurking in the shadows for a long time.
“The case with Trump’s ultimatum is merely a very clear example of a problem that has been going on from the very beginning of the war and likely since before then. It is an amazing opportunity to see this phenomenon in action. Here you have the most powerful leader in the world telling you that you can do whatever you want and that he’s with you. At this point, if you don’t go along with the proposal it’s because you don’t want to,” he told JNS.
“Israel looks weak after Trump’s ultimatum, not Hamas. No one thinks it looks good to be releasing hundreds of terrorists into our cities. No one thinks it’s a picture of victory when you have bulldozers, heavy building equipment and caravans going into Gaza at the same time as the government tells us that they plan to implement Trump’s transfer plan. Everybody understands that this is the exact opposite of Bibi’s promises,” said Ansbacher.
‘We’re really at a decision point‘
According to Wurmser, Israel’s decision with regard to Gaza was ultimately not due to pressure, domestic or otherwise, but more a matter of timing.
Had Hamas made good on its threat not to release the three hostages, the ceasefire would have collapsed and Trump’s ultimatum would have been adopted by Netanyahu immediately and in full, he said.
However, “Hamas backed down very quickly and agreed to release the three hostages, and then entered into discussions about acceleration of the release of captives,” putting the Israeli government in a difficult position, he continued. “If it adopted the ultimatum at that point, that could very well lead to the death of the remaining hostages, because Israel’s hand would be forced and it would have to go in. Likely no more hostages would be released and all the rest would be killed.”
Israel believes there will be no second-phase agreement, having given up everything it was prepared to give up in the first stage of the deal, he said.
“All of the major concessions were already given. In that sense, a few more caravans and a few hundred more prisoners, while damaging, are not the catastrophic irreversible strategic harm that would be required in Phase 2,” Wurmser said.
At the same time, Israel’s demands regarding the second stage of the agreement are “impossible” for Hamas to accept, he said.
In other words, from Israel’s point of view, the only question “is whether the resumption of fighting will be in the context of the ultimatum or in the context of the breakdown of the ceasefire,” he added. “And at that point if you can get another three or six or nine hostages, why not wait? What’s the rush for one week or two weeks if you can save five or six Israelis?”
While Netanyahu’s base may not be happy with some of the government’s decisions, he said, “they understand that it is still incredibly important to have an Israeli right-wing government that is capable of standing up to the Israeli deep state, and Netanyahu is the symbol of that struggle.”
The prime minister and his government stand at a crossroads, said Wurmser.
“Netanyahu is operating on credit right now, and he needs to show that he is still committed to doing what needs to be done,” he told JNS.
“Bibi has so far come through, and ultimately he has done some good things, but we’re really at a decision point. He has no more excuses. If he doesn’t go back to war and finish it and fully work with the United States to execute Trump’s plan, then that will write his legacy. He has another week or two where he can bring back hostages, which everyone wants, but after that it’s time to choose. Either he delivers at that point or his legacy, and the right, will turn on him,” Wurmser said.