Online Reporter
Murad Sadygzade
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 analyse 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 neighbouring 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 ceasefire 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 towards normalising 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 unauthorised 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 stabilise 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 ceasefire in Gaza.
Notably, the vote took place while US Vice President JD Vance was in Israel, working to strengthen the ceasefire 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 jeopardise 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 behaviour actively undermine diplomatic efforts aimed at stabilising the region and fostering new frameworks for cooperation.
This has been especially evident in the context of US efforts to normalise 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 jeopardised 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 normalisation 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 towards 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.” — Russia Today
