Since its founding in 1948, Israel’s prime ministers have sought to leave legacy that will endure long after war, diplomacy, and a few historical errors. Ben-Gurion established the state’s foundational institutions and secured its independence. A conflict that cost her office was the focus of Golda Meir’s presidency. While expanding illegal settlements, Menachem Begin reached a peace agreement with Egypt. In an effort to reconcile with the Palestinians, Yitzhak Rabin was killed.
Each leader had a different impact. No one, however, has been in power as long or as divided as Benjamin Netanyahu. And more than ever, the question is now not just what legacy he wants to leave, but what legacy he is actually making.
In 2016, I argued that Netanyahu was deservedly called the “King of the Middle East,” a title that reflected his success in positioning Israel as a regional power without making any concessions to the Palestinians. I think he sees a chance today to reshape Israel’s regional position permanently through force, impunity, and a strategy rooted in securitized dominance.
Netanyahu has argued that Israel’s security must predominate over all other factors since winning the first term. A Palestinian state is an existential threat in his worldview, not just incompatible with Israel’s security. Netanyahu has made it clear that Israel must maintain what he refers to as “security sovereignty” over all of historical Palestine even if a state were to be established.
Never just rhetoric, this. It has influenced every major decision he makes, not the most recent conflict in Gaza. The assault has caused an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe, displaced most of its two million residents, and leveled entire neighborhoods, and killed tens of thousands of Palestinians.
Human rights organizations and UN agencies accuse Israel of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes. The International Court of Justice is hearing allegations of genocide supported by a number of nations. For alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the use of starvation as a weapon of war, the International Criminal Court has also issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant.
Netanyahu continues, insisting that the destruction of Gaza is necessary to safeguard Israel’s future and that it must never again pose a threat to Israel.
This logical approach extends to Gaza as well. He has used comparable defenses to support Israel’s attacks on Lebanon, including the group’s leader Hassan Nasrallah’s attempted assassination and targeted strikes on Hezbollah figures.
Israel has also launched strikes in Yemen under the same guise and stated that it will intervene in Iraq as necessary.
The security argument has also been used to justify Syria’s ongoing occupation, and it is currently being used to legitimize Iran’s ongoing attacks, ostensibly to stop it from acquiring nuclear weapons and lower its missile and drone capabilities.
Israel’s enemies must be defeated, its deterrence must be unquestioned, and its dominance must be established in every instance. Any form of resistance, whether it be military, political, or even symbolic, is seen as a threat that must be eradicate.
This logic is evident in every diplomatic effort made by Netanyahu. During his administration, the Abraham Accords, which he signed with the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco, were praised as peace agreements but primarily served as regional alignment tools for the Palestinians. Normalization is not a path to peace, in Netanyahu’s opinion, but a means to defend Israel’s position while avoiding a just solution to the occupation.
What is the goal of Netanyahu’s legacy, then?
He wants to be remembered as the one who swore to end all forms of occupation resistance, establishes a Palestinian state, and swore to be remembered as the one who steadfastly upheld Israel’s position of power in the Middle East. In his opinion, Israel is in charge of the land, sets the laws, and answers no questions.
However, he might have a different history.
The majority of the world is increasingly seeing systemic violence as what Netanyahu refers to as security. Under his leadership, Israel is losing legitimacy but is growing in popularity thanks to the millions of protest marches in protest of the war in Gaza.
Israel is increasingly isolated even among its allies. Although the United States continues to provide diplomatic cover, terms like “settler colonialism,” “ethnic cleansing,” and “apartheid” are no longer just used in fringe activism. They are influencing young people’s political consciousness and are influencing the general public.
Many commentators contend that Netanyahu is holding onto his position of power merely to avoid being charged with corruption or held accountable for the attacks against Israel on October 7, 2023. However, I think the analysis misses the deeper truth that he views this historical opportunity, this conflict, and this absence of accountability. This is legacy work in his opinion.
The tragedy is that he could achieve the opposite of his intentions by leaving this legacy. A more subdued Israel than a stronger one. A state that is increasingly seen as a violator of international standards, but not a secure homeland. A moral and political collapse instead of a legacy of strength.
Netanyahu will be remembered. There is no longer any doubt about that as Iran continues to strike after strike as Gaza burns. Only to be seen is whether his legacy will be one of national security or one that leaves Israel more isolated, more vulnerable, and precarious than ever.
Source: Aljazeera
Leave a Reply