Fresh from a high-stakes visit to Florida, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to have secured a vital diplomatic endorsement. President Donald Trump, labeling the Prime Minister a “hero,” recently claimed that Israel has adhered “100 percent” to the U.S.-backed ceasefire framework. Yet, beneath the public flattery, the reality on the ground in Gaza suggests a far more fragile peace.
Despite the current pause in large-scale combat, reports indicate that the transition to “Phase Two” of the ceasefire plan is stalling. This second stage—crucial for a long-term resolution—involves the deployment of an international security force and the establishment of a technocratic “Board of Peace.”
As 2025 draws to a close, analysts are pointing to four primary reasons why Netanyahu may be content to keep the peace process in a state of suspended animation.
Netanyahu’s political survival depends on the most right-wing coalition in Israel’s history. Key ministers, including Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, have remained vocally opposed to any deal that includes the release of Palestinian prisoners or the full withdrawal of troops. For these hardliners, anything short of the total occupation of Gaza is viewed as a defeat. Netanyahu knows that moving forward with a permanent peace could trigger a walkout, collapsing his government and forcing early elections.
The proposed introduction of an international stabilization force would significantly curb Israel’s operational freedom. Currently, the IDF maintains the ability to conduct targeted strikes or re-enter zones where it detects Hamas activity. Accepting foreign boots on the ground would effectively internationalize a conflict that Netanyahu has long framed as a domestic security matter, shifting strategic control away from Jerusalem and toward external actors.
While the current ceasefire doesn’t explicitly mandate a Palestinian state, it outlines a “political horizon” for coexistence—a concept Netanyahu has spent the better part of a decade resisting. By maintaining a state of “neither war nor peace,” the Prime Minister can continue to stall diplomatic momentum toward a two-state solution. This strategy is further bolstered by ongoing settlement expansion in the West Bank, which critics argue is designed to make a contiguous Palestinian state geographically impossible.
Domestically, Netanyahu is besieged by challenges: a long-running corruption trial, a looming public inquiry into the October 7 security failures, and a contentious debate over ultra-Orthodox conscription. Historically, periods of active or imminent conflict have served as a “rally around the flag” mechanism, blurring domestic criticism and allowing him to maintain his status as a wartime leader. A final, settled peace would bring these domestic crises back to the forefront of the national conversation.
