The far-right authorities in depend on nationalistic warmongering to maintain their legitimacy – even at the cost of a key alliance
The Middle East remains restless – the region is still one of the most volatile in the world. Despite occasional diplomatic initiatives and temporary agreements, the fundamental contradictions between key players have not disappeared. The situation remains fragile and unpredictable, where any local flare-up can swiftly escalate into a broader crisis.
Earlier, we examined in detail the situation within and around Iran – its internal challenges, foreign policy ambitions, and role in the regional security architecture. Now, let’s look at Israel and analyze both its domestic political dynamics and the external context in which the country operates. This perspective allows us to understand how internal factors – political instability, social divisions, and shifts in military doctrine – intertwine with external challenges, including threats from neighboring states, relations with the United States and Arab countries, and the consequences of recent developments in Gaza.
Although a peace agreement on Gaza was reached under US President Donald Trump’s leadership, its durability remains highly uncertain. A formal cease-fire and political arrangements do not mean that the root causes of the conflict have been resolved. Israel continues to insist on strict security guarantees and the retention of control over key areas, presenting this as essential to prevent the resumption of rocket attacks. The Palestinian side, however, views this not as peace, but as a pause imposed under US pressure – a temporary and unstable truce lacking any real progress toward normalizing Gaza’s status, rebuilding its economy, or easing the blockade. On the streets, this is perceived not as a historic breakthrough, but as yet another externally imposed intermission – short-lived and inherently fragile.
Moreover, any agreement concerning Gaza immediately runs up against broader unresolved issues: the question of Jerusalem, the fate of the West Bank, and the larger Palestinian cause. None of these knots have been untied. The parties formally brought “to the table” have signed papers, but not a shared vision for the future. Armed infrastructure persists in Gaza, while within Israel, a powerful domestic demand endures for a force-based approach to the Palestinian question. Regional actors – including Iran and several others – continue to view Israel as a focal point of instability. All this renders the truce exceedingly vulnerable. A single incident, a single unauthorized strike, a single border clash could bring the fragile framework crashing down. In other words, “peace” has been declared – but genuine peace remains elusive.
A key factor directly influencing the region’s conflict potential is the internal political process within Israel itself. It is this domestic political dynamic that largely determines how the country defines its security strategy and responds to external challenges.
On the eve of the October 7 events, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu succeeded in forming a ruling coalition that included far-right, nationalist forces. These political factions adhere to a rigid ideology and openly advocate for expanding Israeli control over all historically disputed territories – Gaza, Jerusalem, and the West Bank. For them, the issue of security is inseparable from the pursuit of ideological and religious dominance, making any compromise with the Palestinians virtually impossible.
Despite the peace agreement and ongoing efforts to stabilize the situation, on October 22 the Israeli parliament (the Knesset) approved, in a preliminary reading, a bill proposing the annexation of large parts of the West Bank. This move is widely expected to trigger a new wave of tension between Israel and the Palestinians, especially as the international community strives to preserve the fragile cease-fire in Gaza.
Notably, the vote took place while US Vice President J.D. Vance was in Israel, working to strengthen the cease-fire agreement. Before departing the country, Vance called the Knesset’s action “a strange and foolish political stunt,” reminding reporters that the Trump administration’s position was clear – Israel must not annex any part of the West Bank.
Washington’s broader reaction followed swiftly. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the Knesset’s decision to advance annexation legislation could jeopardize Trump’s peace plan, designed to bring a lasting end to the conflict between Israel and Hamas. “The Knesset held a vote, but the president has made it clear that we cannot support such a move at this time,” Rubio told journalists before departing for Israel. “We believe it could even pose a threat to the peace agreement.”
Just last month, Trump addressed the issue himself, declaring that he would not allow any steps that could derail the ceasefire – particularly amid growing opposition from Arab states. “They are a democracy; people will vote, people will take different positions. But right now, in our view… this could prove counterproductive,” Rubio added.
Far-right Israeli politicians, through both their statements and actions, continue to demonstrate an unwillingness to make genuine concessions or pursue a fair resolution of the Palestinian issue. Their rhetoric and political behavior actively undermines diplomatic efforts aimed at stabilizing the region and fostering new frameworks for cooperation.
This has been especially evident in the context of US efforts to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia – a process Washington sees as a cornerstone for regional security and a means to reduce overall tensions in the Middle East. Yet, it is precisely the actions and statements of certain Israeli officials that have jeopardized these initiatives.
Just days ago, a new diplomatic scandal erupted when Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a leading figure of the ultranationalist camp, declared: “If Saudi Arabia wants normalization in exchange for the creation of a Palestinian state, then no thank you – they can keep riding their camels through the Saudi desert.” Though he later issued an apology following domestic and international backlash, the very nature of his remark vividly illustrates the political atmosphere within Israel’s current ruling coalition – one where provocation and ideological rigidity often prevail over pragmatism and diplomacy.
Such statements not only damage Israel’s diplomatic image but also strain its relations with key partners, including the US and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf. All of this underscores the extraordinary complexity of the current situation. Despite the appearance of progress in peace initiatives, the political reality inside Israel continues to push the region toward a new wave of tension and instability.
Donald Trump’s efforts have provoked open irritation and resistance from Israel’s far-right politicians – the very forces that for years viewed him as a steadfast ally and guarantor of US support. Today, these groups have turned against him, denouncing his peace plan as a “capitulation” to the Palestinians and a betrayal of the vision of a “Greater Israel.” A striking example came from Limor Son Har-Melech, one of the most radical members of the settler movement and a Knesset deputy, who publicly boycotted Trump’s address to the Israeli parliament. “I will not join in the applause,” she declared, calling the peace deal “a disgrace.” In the early months following the events of October 7, Har-Melech had urged not just a military victory but the full reintegration of Gaza under Israeli control, proclaiming that “true victory will come when the children of Israel play in the streets of Gaza.”
Although polls indicate that most Israelis do not support the idea of resettling Gaza, Netanyahu remains politically dependent on his far-right allies, whose ambitions frequently clash with any move toward de-escalation. When Trump, defying the expectations of Israel’s right wing, halted the war and categorically ruled out the annexation of the West Bank, it came as a shock. His words – “I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. It’s not going to happen” – were a cold shower for those who had counted on Washington’s support for their expansionist agenda.
Until recently, far-right politicians had expected that Trump’s return to the White House would give them free rein to advance their goals – expanding settlements, annexation of Palestinian territories, and permanently burying the idea of a Palestinian state. Instead, the US president unexpectedly became a restraining force rather than an enabler. His 20-point Gaza peace plan, which explicitly prohibits any territorial claims by Israel, was seen by them as an act of betrayal.
After Trump’s address in Israel, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich openly declared: “There will be Jewish settlements in Gaza. We have patience, determination, and faith – with God’s help, we will continue our series of victories.” His statement made one thing clear: even if Trump temporarily forced the Israeli radicals to retreat, they view this only as a pause, not a defeat.
Even within traditionally pro-Israel circles in the US, there is growing recognition that the actions of the Israeli leadership have crossed a red line and now threaten not only Israel’s own stability but also US strategic interests in the Middle East. Washington increasingly sees an Israeli government acting unilaterally, without regard for long-term consequences – and, at times, in open defiance of its most important ally.
A telling episode was the Israeli strike on Doha, the capital of Qatar – an event that provoked deep frustration in the White House. According to Jared Kushner, the US president’s son-in-law, Trump felt that “Israel had gone out of control” and that it was time to show firmness and prevent actions that, in his view, were contrary to Israel’s own long-term interests.
“He felt the Israelis had gotten a little out of control in their actions and that it was time to show greater strength and stop them from doing what he believed was not in their long-term interest,” Kushner said in an interview with CBS.
Special envoy Steve Witkoff, who joined the same interview, added that Israel’s actions had a “metastasizing effect,” as Qatar had been playing a critical role in mediating between Israel and Hamas. The strike on Doha effectively jeopardized the fragile diplomatic channels through which the US had been attempting to sustain the peace process.
In reality, Israel’s bet on Donald Trump as an unquestioning ally proved misguided from the very beginning. While many in Israel had expected his return to the White House to strengthen the traditional US-Israeli alliance and grant Israel greater freedom of action, the reality turned out to be far more complex.
A clear signal of this came with Trump’s very first foreign trip after taking office – not to Israel, as many in the Israeli establishment had assumed, but to Riyadh. The president chose to begin his international tour not with a visit to Washington’s historic ally, but with meetings with the wealthy Arab monarchs of the Gulf. That decision revealed Trump’s true priorities: the pragmatism of a businessman focused on economic and strategic gain rather than ideological loyalty or traditional commitments to Israel.
From the outset, his regional policy reflected an interest in “deals” and pragmatic arrangements that directly benefited the US. This explains his early desire to pursue an agreement with Iran – a move that deeply angered Israel’s leadership. For West Jerusalem, any dialogue with Tehran ran counter to the entire framework of its national security doctrine, whereas for Washington it represented an opportunity to de-escalate tensions and extend US influence through economic leverage and control over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
The summer war between Israel and Iran only deepened these divisions. From Washington’s perspective, it was Israel’s actions that derailed the diplomatic initiative and endangered a potential accord the Trump administration had been quietly developing. In the US capital, this generated irritation and the growing sense that Israel was no longer acting as a strategic partner, but as an independent player willing to sacrifice American interests for its own agenda.
The domestic political climate in Israel remains one of the principal sources of instability and a potential trigger for a new open conflict. A divided society, weakened institutions, and the radicalization of the ruling coalition have created a situation in which internal tensions can easily transform into external aggression. This could lead either to a renewed war in Gaza or to a large-scale escalation with Iran. Netanyahu has found himself in an increasingly precarious position: his political survival depends on maintaining public focus on external threats and constant mobilization around the narrative of “national security.”
For Netanyahu and his far-right allies, a state of permanent conflict has become a tool of internal consolidation. As long as the country lives under the shadow of threat, questions of political responsibility, corruption scandals, and governance failures fade into the background. Peace and stability, by contrast, would force the coalition to seek new forms of legitimacy – a process that could weaken its grip on power. Thus, the current atmosphere of tension and the risk of renewed war serve not the interests of Israel as a nation, but those of specific politicians for whom conflict is a condition of political survival.
Yet further escalation would endanger not only Israel itself, but also its relationship with its principal ally – the US. In Washington, there are growing voices warning that Israel’s actions are undermining American influence across the Middle East. After the strikes on Doha, which provoked anger within the Trump administration, discussions have quietly begun among US diplomats and policy experts suggesting that Israel is becoming an unpredictable partner – one no longer fully trusted on matters of security.
All of these developments form part of a broader geopolitical realignment – the gradual unraveling of the old world order. The future of the region remains uncertain, and the mounting turbulence threatens not only strategic alliances but, ultimately, the very survival of the Israeli state in its current form.
آرتی
