(Adnkronos) – The agreement on the ceasefire in Gaza and the release of the hostages, which should enter into force on Sunday, is making the Israeli government very nervous. And consequently it does not leave Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu alone, under pressure as never before for the consequences of the agreement, whether it collapses or goes through, but also for the three criminal proceedings that continue to concern him.
In the past few hours, Netanyahu has openly accused Hamas of having reneged on parts of the US-brokered agreement and has postponed the government meeting that should have ratified it. If the Palestinian faction immediately rejected the accusations, the attention immediately shifted to the two exponents of the Israeli religious right, National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and his Finance colleague Bezalel Smotrich, who have not hidden their bellyaches for an understanding that, in their eyes, favors Hamas too much.
Smotrich’s party, Religious Zionism, called the agreement “bad and dangerous” and asked Netanyahu for guarantees that Israel would resume fighting “immediately after the conclusion of the first phase of the agreement”, threatening otherwise to leave the government. A nuisance that Netanyahu would have gladly done without at this moment. The prime minister, in fact, currently counts on the support of 68 deputies out of 120 in the Knesset and the exit of Smotrich’s party from the majority with its 7 votes would mean exposing himself to a ‘Vietnam’ risk in Parliament in view of the delicate steps ahead.
“Israel will not set a date for a cabinet and government meeting (to approve the agreement, ed) until mediators announce that Hamas has approved all the details of the agreement,” Netanyahu said, trying to mask tensions with its far-right allies who – explains the Financial Times – do not have the strength to sink the agreement, but certainly to make Netanyahu lose the majority in the Knesset which with their 13 deputies overall.
A possible step back by Ben Gvir and Smotrich would not automatically mean the end of the Likud leader’s government since Israel’s political system does not exclude minority governments and some opposition parties have already announced that they are ready to support the executive if necessary. But certainly the hypothesis of early elections at that point would not be far-fetched and at that point Netanyahu’s political future would be full of uncertainties.
If, on the other hand, the agreement were to collapse for some reason, at that point the pressure from public opinion and the families of the hostages would be very strong. But what would make Netanyahu seriously waver would be the wrath of the new tenant of the White House, who would not like – to put it mildly – to show up at the inauguration of his second term without having resolved at least one of the two major crises he promised to resolve.
