Since its founding in 1948, Israel’s prime ministers have sought to go away legacies that might outlast them — some by warfare, others by diplomacy, and some by historic blunders. David Ben-Gurion secured the state’s independence and constructed its foundational establishments. Golda Meir presided over a warfare that price her workplace. Menachem Start signed peace with Egypt whereas increasing unlawful settlements. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for making an attempt to make peace with the Palestinians.
Every chief, not directly, left their mark. However none has dominated as lengthy – or as divisively – as Benjamin Netanyahu. And now, greater than ever, the query is not only what sort of legacy he needs to go away, however what legacy he’s really creating.
In 2016, I argued that the Arab world had successfully topped Netanyahu “King of the Center East” — a title that mirrored his success in positioning Israel as a regional energy with out making any concessions to the Palestinians. At this time, I imagine he sees a possibility not solely to consolidate that title, however to reshape Israel’s regional place completely — by drive, impunity, and a technique rooted in securitised dominance.
Since his first time period, Netanyahu has insisted that Israel’s safety should override all different concerns. In his worldview, a Palestinian state shouldn’t be merely incompatible with Israel’s safety; it’s an existential risk. Even had been such a state to be created, Netanyahu has made clear that Israel should retain what he calls “safety sovereignty” over all of historic Palestine.
This has by no means been mere rhetoric. It has formed his each main choice, none extra so than the present warfare on Gaza. The assault has levelled whole neighbourhoods, killed tens of hundreds of Palestinians, displaced most of its two million individuals, and created an unprecedented humanitarian disaster.
Israel stands accused by human rights teams and United Nations businesses of committing warfare crimes, ethnic cleaning, and genocide. It’s dealing with genocide prices, supported by a number of international locations, on the Worldwide Court docket of Justice. The Worldwide Felony Court docket has additionally issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, for alleged warfare crimes and crimes towards humanity, together with using hunger as a weapon of warfare.
But Netanyahu presses on, arguing that Gaza mustn’t ever once more pose a risk to Israel, and that the destruction is critical to safe the nation’s future.
This logic doesn’t cease at Gaza. He has used comparable arguments to justify Israel’s assaults on Lebanon, together with focused strikes on Hezbollah figures and the tried assassination of the group’s chief, Hassan Nasrallah.
Utilizing the identical rationale, Israel has additionally launched strikes in Yemen and made clear that it’s going to act in Iraq every time and wherever it deems obligatory.
The safety argument has likewise been used to justify the continued occupation of Syrian territory and is at present invoked to legitimise ongoing assaults on Iran, ostensibly to forestall it from buying nuclear weapons and to degrade its missile and drone capabilities.
In each case, the identical narrative is repeated: Israel can’t be secure until its enemies are damaged, its deterrence unchallenged, and its dominance undisputed. All dissent, disagreement, or resistance — whether or not navy, political, and even symbolic — is solid as a risk to be eradicated.
Even Netanyahu’s diplomatic efforts observe this logic. The Abraham Accords, signed with the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco throughout his premiership, had been hailed as peace offers however functioned primarily as devices of regional alignment that marginalised the Palestinians. For Netanyahu, normalisation shouldn’t be a path to peace — it’s a solution to cement Israel’s place whereas avoiding a simply decision to the occupation.
What, then, is the legacy Netanyahu seeks?
He needs to be remembered because the prime minister who crushed all resistance to occupation, completely ended the thought of a Palestinian state, and enshrined Israel’s dominance within the Center East by sheer drive. In his imaginative and prescient, Israel controls the land, dictates the principles, and solutions to nobody.
However historical past could keep in mind him in a different way.
What Netanyahu calls safety, a lot of the world more and more sees as systemic violence. The worldwide response to the warfare on Gaza — thousands and thousands marching in protest, worldwide authorized motion, rising boycotts, and diplomatic downgrades — means that underneath his management, Israel shouldn’t be gaining legitimacy however dropping it.
Even amongst its allies, Israel faces rising isolation. Whereas america continues to supply diplomatic cowl, phrases like “apartheid”, “ethnic cleaning”, and “settler colonialism” are not confined to fringe activism. They’re coming into mainstream political discourse and shaping public consciousness, notably amongst youthful generations.
Many commentators argue that Netanyahu is clinging to energy merely to keep away from prosecution for corruption or accountability for the failures of the October 7, 2023, assaults on Israel. However I imagine this evaluation misses a deeper fact: that he sees this second — this warfare, this absence of accountability — as a historic window of alternative. In his thoughts, that is legacy work.
The tragedy is that in pursuing this legacy, he could obtain the alternative of what he intends. Not a stronger Israel, however a extra remoted one. Not a safe homeland, however a state more and more seen as a violator of worldwide norms. Not a legacy of energy, however one in all ethical and political collapse.
Netanyahu can be remembered. At this time, as Gaza burns and Iran faces strike after strike, there is no such thing as a longer any doubt about that. The one query is whether or not his legacy can be one in all nationwide safety, or one which leaves Israel extra alone, extra condemned, and extra precarious than ever earlier than.
The views expressed on this article are the creator’s personal and don’t essentially mirror Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
