Did the October deal really save Netanyahu ... or postpone his downfall?

When the October 2025 ceasefire agreement was approved, it was not just a temporary military shift but a strategic test of the Israeli leadership's structure and ability to withstand unprecedented domestic pressure. At this delicate moment, Benjamin Netanyahu went from being a prosecuted prime minister to a political architect trying to reproduce his crumbling legitimacy through a deal designed more for survival than peace.

From day one, Netanyahu reframed the official rhetoric to turn the truce into a "sovereign victory" rather than a "forced concession." He exploited the deliberate ambiguity of the terms of the deal to preserve room for maneuver between two opposing camps: the hard right, which rejects any truce, and the centrist opposition, which sees it as a temporary humanitarian window. The October agreement was thus not a solution to the crisis, but a tool to suspend political collapse, which scholars have described as a "fall brake".

Within the coalition, Netanyahu dealt with Ben-Gvir and his comrades by managing the rebellion rather than breaking it: he made symbolic promises of continued "decisiveness against Hamas" without a time commitment, capitalizing on this to relieve pressure and demonstrate his ability to control the implosion.In parallel, he used his opponents in the opposition, led by Yair Lapid, to provide a "political safety net" that enabled him to pass the deal without the government collapsing. With this tactical flexibility, Netanyahu succeeded in turning the moment of division into a platform to claim national unity, presenting himself as a leader above partisan polarization.

However, opinion polls reveal that this "victory" did not change the essence of the equation. Netanyahu's popularity only rose for a few weeks and then returned to its downward trajectory. Israeli society is still deeply divided: 45 percent of Israelis are calling for his resignation, while most believe that the war did not achieve its goals. This means that his real gain was political time deferred, not renewed legitimacy.

The paper concludes that the October deal was the culmination of Netanyahu's mastery of the policy of postponing the explosion: he brought together opposites, avoided decisive decisions, and managed the conflict rather than resolved it. However, this strategy, based on gaining time rather than changing reality, shows the limits of the "art of survival" he has perfected. The storms he postpones today may hit him tomorrow when temporary balances dissolve and the big questions return: Where is Israel headed?

To view the video and read the full analytical paper, please scroll down.