Although Israeli public opinion polls show a decline in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's popularity since the beginning of 2023, and a rise in the popularity of the Zionist opposition parties, Netanyahu's government is currently very stable. Protests against the government's "judicial reform" plan to weaken the judiciary have subsided, as have protests against the government's policy of refusing to reach a prisoner exchange agreement and a ceasefire in Gaza.

It is noteworthy that the decline in the coalition bloc of parties in the polls is due to a decline in the popularity of Netanyahu's Likud party, which has lost between 8 and 12 seats in the Knesset, while the popularity of the remaining coalition parties remains relatively stable. If it becomes clear on the eve of the next election that the Religious Zionism party, headed by Bezalel Smotrich, will not pass the electoral threshold, it is expected that it will run on a single list with the relatively popular Otzma Yehudit party, headed by Itamar Ben-Gvir, and that they will separate after the election, as happened after the last election.

There is broad consensus within Netanyahu's government on almost all issues, particularly those related to the "judicial reform" plan and the dismissal of "threshold guardians," such as the attorney general and the head of the Shin Bet. However, there is a deep disagreement between Smotrich's and Ben-Gvir's parties and the ultra-Orthodox parties over whether to enact a law exempting or requiring ultra-Orthodox men from military conscription.

In general, disagreements between the coalition and the opposition are primarily over domestic issues, such as "judicial reform" and the conscription of ultra-Orthodox Jews. There is little disagreement between the two sides over foreign issues, especially if they relate to the war on Gaza, a major attack on Iran, or the occupation of Arab lands, as is the case in Syria and Lebanon.

While opposition party leaders, such as Yair Lapid, may have called for a continued prisoner exchange between Israel and Hamas, they do not call for an end to the war of extermination in Gaza in any form. Last Tuesday, Yisrael Beiteinu party leader Avigdor Lieberman opposed the entry of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip, claiming, "While our kidnapped soldiers are being starved in the tunnels and residents of the south are running to shelters on Passover, the Israeli government is once again surrendering and intending to transfer more humanitarian aid to Gaza. This must not be allowed to happen."

Regarding Netanyahu's continued threats to attack Iran, National Camp party leader Benny Gantz stated in a post on the X platform yesterday that "the Iranian regime is an expert at stalling. Israel must and can attack Iran. We must enlist the United States and change the face of the Middle East."

Opposition leader Lapid said yesterday, "I proposed attacking Iranian oil fields in October.

Destroying Iran's oil industry would destroy its economy and ultimately bring down the regime. Netanyahu got scared and stopped it."

This means that in Israel, in general, there is a "trance of power" toward the outside world through the threat of continuous wars, and in the Netanyahu government, in particular, there is a "trance of power" toward the inside world through the continuation of its policies, without the opposition having any ability to obstruct them or obstruct any part of them.

Criticism of Zamir from within the security services

Israel's internal political disputes have seeped into the Israeli military over the past week, with petitions signed by thousands of reserve officers and soldiers demanding a prisoner exchange "even if it means stopping the war." Netanyahu and IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir considered these petitions to be a practical call to refuse military service, but the signatories emphasized that the petitions do not call for refusal from service. It is noteworthy that a large number of reserve personnel, particularly in the air force, had previously declared their refusal to serve in protest against the "judicial reform" plan.

The reservists' petitions were a protest against Israel's resumption of the war on Gaza without the return of its prisoners held in the Gaza Strip. In other words, they were a protest against government policy. However, Zamir decided to dismiss the petitioners from military service and declared that he would not allow the "politicization" of the army. In the Israeli military sense, reservists are citizens who volunteer for military service.

Israel resumed the war on Gaza two weeks after Zamir took office. He drew up the war plans and declared that the goal was to eliminate Hamas and return the Israeli prisoners—two goals Israel failed to achieve in the year and a half before the ceasefire on January 19. Zamir believed that the resumption of the war did not pose a threat to the Israeli prisoners. However, he informed the political-security cabinet that there was a severe shortage of soldiers and that the recruitment rate for combat units was low.

Israeli security officers and officials have been highly critical of Zamir, accusing him of "supporting the government in a way that goes against purely military considerations," saying "it's not clear to us where this war is heading," and that "not everyone in the security establishment and the army supports this military operation," according to what Yedioth Ahronoth reported on Wednesday.

In response to Zamir's accusations, officers in the Israeli Southern Command, in a briefing to military correspondents, described the resumption of the war as "military pressure" aimed at forcing Hamas to agree to a prisoner exchange deal—that is, to give up its negotiating positions, particularly the refusal to condition the exchange on guarantees for a ceasefire. In Israel, too, Hamas is not expected to give up this condition.

To counter the accusation that Zamir supports the government, the officers said that discussions are underway with the political echelon regarding the introduction of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip, despite widespread opposition to this within the government, which has the final say on the matter.

Trump prevents an Israeli attack on Iran?

Israel rejects any country in the region possessing nuclear weapons. This rejection is openly known as the "Begin Doctrine," named after former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who decided to attack and destroy Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. Under this doctrine, Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor under construction in Syria in 2007, following a decision by then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

It is no secret that the Israeli military has conducted and continues to conduct training to attack the Iranian nuclear program, a program far larger and more extensive than those of Iraq and Syria. Its facilities are spread across numerous sites in Iran, some of them underground. At the beginning of the last decade, Netanyahu, with the support of then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak, issued an order to attack the Iranian program. However, the leaders of the Israeli security services—Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, Mossad Director Meir Dagan, and Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin—prevented the attack after they called on Israeli President Shimon Peres to intervene and persuade Netanyahu and Barak to reverse their decision.

Yesterday, the New York Times published a report, citing informed sources, stating that US President Donald Trump urgently asked Netanyahu to come to the White House early last week to inform him that he was prohibiting Israel from implementing a ready-made plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, which could be implemented next month. This came after officials in Netanyahu's government informed the Trump administration of this plan, which calls for an airstrike and a ground incursion by special forces. Israeli reports and comments suggest that Netanyahu, through his aides, was the one who leaked the information to the American newspaper.

If this is true, Netanyahu has an interest in this leak. He wants to claim that he sought to attack Iran but was prevented by the US president, because Trump announced during a meeting with him last week that he would enter into direct negotiations with Iran on a new nuclear agreement. Furthermore, there are reports circulating about Trump's desire to avoid igniting new wars in which the United States would be involved. An Israeli attack on Iran would require US intervention to repel a subsequent Iranian missile attack, which Israel alone cannot repel, as was demonstrated during such an Iranian attack at the end of last April, when the US and British militaries intercepted Iranian missiles heading towards Israel.

Perhaps the most important aspect of this issue, and its public exposure, is what Netanyahu received from Trump in exchange for preventing an attack on Iran and Netanyahu's acquiescence. It is likely that Trump pledged to Netanyahu that he would not exert serious pressure on him to stop the war on Gaza. Continuing the war is in Netanyahu's personal interest, as it ensures that his government is not destabilized, and stopping the war would permanently remove him from power.

The same security officials, speaking to Yedioth Ahronoth on Wednesday, indicated that "Trump's thwarting of Israeli plans to attack Iran could lead Netanyahu to order a deeper military operation in Gaza."