The Media Line: Can the Israeli Government Survive Trump’s Gaza Plan?  

Audio By Carbonatix

Enlarge

Can the Israeli Government Survive Trump’s Gaza Plan?  

As President Donald Trump reportedly advances a 21-point framework to end the Gaza war, coalition partners defy the Prime Minister while opposition voices predict imminent collapse.

By Gabriel Colodro/The Media Line 

The Israeli parliament opened the week with a scene that could define the country’s political future: coalition partners openly challenged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office, advancing a controversial death penalty debate against his request just hours before Netanyahu’s meeting with President Trump in Washington. The confrontation exposed deep fractures within the coalition at the very moment the United States reportedly shared a 21-point framework with several Arab and Muslim governments on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly—raising the question of whether Netanyahu can deliver on the American proposal, or whether his government will collapse before he even tries. 

The immediate confrontation centered on the National Security Committee, which convened on Sunday to advance legislation on capital punishment for terrorists. Netanyahu’s office had asked that the debate be postponed, wary of how such a move might complicate sensitive hostage negotiations and send a troubling signal abroad. Yet Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power party), led by National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, pressed ahead. Four lawmakers voted in favor, one opposed, and the measure moved forward despite warnings from security officials, the hostage coordinator, and the prime minister’s own advisers. For many observers, the incident was not simply about the death penalty but about the deeper authority of the prime minister over his fractious coalition. 

Yitzhak Kroizer, a parliamentarian from Jewish Power, defended the decision. Speaking to The Media Line while touring border communities near Gaza, he said his party’s position was clear. “When terrorists know they face a death sentence in Israeli prisons, it sends a very significant message,” he explained. “For those holding the hostages in Gaza, the only way for them to survive is to return the hostages or provide information. This is our worldview on how to confront terror.” 

For Kroizer, the timing of the debate was no coincidence, but rather part of a calculated effort to shape the climate ahead of any diplomatic moves. He drew a direct line to the reported American plan, warning that “we did not go to war in Gaza in order to hand it over on a silver platter to another terror organization. The Palestinian Authority is the biggest funder of terror against the Jewish people. If after two years of war we simply give Gaza to another terror entity, we are not willing to accept that.” 

Kroizer was explicit that Netanyahu lacks the legitimacy to implement the outline. “The public that elected him opposes such a deal,” he said. “His mandate is to destroy the terror organizations, return the hostages, and restore Jewish settlement and sovereignty in Gaza. Anything else is a betrayal of that mandate.” 

The remarks highlighted the pressure Netanyahu faces: resisting Washington risks alienating Israel’s closest ally, while conceding risks tearing apart his government. 

Simcha Rothman of the Religious Zionism party struck a slightly different chord but reached the same conclusion. Rothman, who participated in the committee session, dismissed the legislative maneuver as redundant. “It’s in the law books today. You can do it. The problem is the attorney general is not cooperating with the government,” he said, accusing Israel’s chief legal officer of obstructing decisions and calling for her dismissal. 

Yet on the larger diplomatic stakes, he was uncompromising. “The cabinet has adopted resolutions on the goals of the war: eliminate Hamas, release the hostages, ensure Israeli security control in Gaza, prevent Hamas or the Palestinian Authority from managing Gaza, and demilitarize the Strip. Any plan that does not stand within those guidelines is not an option. For me, the 21-point program is clearly no. It’s a nonstarter.” 

Rothman expanded his critique to address the idea of granting amnesty to Hamas members, one of the more controversial points. “If someone says he wants peace with you but demands that you release the crazy murderers who want to kill you and declare them heroes, he does not want peace. He wants more soldiers for the next attacks that will look like Oct. 7.” 

For him, the debate is not about electoral politics but about existential security. “When my prime minister is outside of Israel, on the way to negotiate with the president of the United States, I do not criticize him or make threats,” he added. “The discussion about politics, which coalition, who will leave, who will stay, are the least important. This is the State of Israel we’re talking about.” 

The voices of Kroizer and Rothman reflect a broader unease among Netanyahu’s right-wing partners, who fear that Washington’s plan—though still unofficial—could bring concessions they cannot support. Reports suggest that the framework includes phased ceasefires, prisoner releases, the return of all hostages, and a long-term political horizon, possibly involving the Palestinian Authority. 

For parties that define themselves by their opposition to Palestinian sovereignty, these are red lines they cannot cross. In their telling, even Netanyahu’s mandate is limited by the electoral promise never to allow another terror group to rule Gaza. 

From the opposition benches, the interpretation is starkly different. Lawmaker Moshe Tur-Paz of Yesh Atid argued that Netanyahu’s government is already collapsing under its own contradictions. “It’s already six months since the ultra-Orthodox started leaving the coalition,” he said. “Netanyahu hasn’t managed to pass any legislation in these months. And Ben Gvir has shown today that he’s already deep in the election campaign. That’s why he led the legislation against Netanyahu’s will.” 

In his view, the coalition has become paralyzed, with ultra-Orthodox factions frustrated at unfulfilled promises and far-right partners more interested in political theater than in governance. “Governments collapse from inside,” he said. “Netanyahu’s will collapse eventually, hopefully soon. Most signs are showing we’re going there. In a month or two, we’re going to elections.” 

Tur-Paz recalled that opposition leader Yair Lapid offered Netanyahu a political safety net on Oct. 7, pledging to support him if he removed extremists from the coalition. Netanyahu declined, and Tur-Paz claims the price has been heavy. “Ben Gvir has said provocatively, but I believe him, that he stopped quite a few deals for hostages. That’s the reality,” he remarked. 

For Tur-Paz, the prime minister has clung to the illusion of total victory while ignoring the opportunity for pragmatic compromise. “Netanyahu is selling a dream that Hamas can vanish tomorrow morning. That dream won’t come true. What we can do is end the war, bring back our hostages, move our soldiers to defensible borders, and get a better government to run Gaza. That’s what’s on the table, and that’s what’s in Israel’s best interest.” 

Asked what alternative he envisions, Tur-Paz did not hesitate. “The best thing for the people of Israel after Oct. 7 is to go to elections and reelect the government they want. Most polls are showing it would be a totally different government—maybe a wider one including right, center, and Zionist left parties. The decisions are not right or left; they are about what is best for Israel.” 

For him, only elections can break the deadlock. He acknowledged that a Palestinian state is not a realistic option now, with 48 hostages still in captivity and wide Palestinian support for Hamas, but insisted that Israel must still preserve a long-term vision of eventual resolution. “We have to have a vision, and a vision is to courageously try to solve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians,” he said, while stressing that no peace is possible until hatred is replaced by education for coexistence. 

The contrast between the coalition hardliners and the opposition captures the dilemma facing Netanyahu as he sits down with Trump. On one side, allies in Washington expect him to consider an agreement that would bring home the hostages and stabilize Gaza—even if it means empowering actors Israel distrusts. On the other side, his own partners have declared such an outline impossible—a betrayal of both electoral promises and national security. 

Kroizer warned his party would “fight with all the tools we have to prevent this outline from advancing.” Rothman called the plan “clearly no … a nonstarter.” Tur-Paz concluded that if Netanyahu does try to advance it, “reality shows we’re going to elections.” 

The American president may have outlined what he calls a pathway to end the war. In Jerusalem, however, the discussion has already shifted to survival itself. Netanyahu will return from Washington facing not only the expectations of his ally in the White House but also mounting insubordination at home. The imminent question is whether his government will reach the end of the war, or whether elections will arrive first.