Netanyahu: How One Man Used the World to Serve His Personal Goals

A torn elections poster of Netanyahu in 1999. (Getty Images file)
A torn elections poster of Netanyahu in 1999. (Getty Images file)
TT

Netanyahu: How One Man Used the World to Serve His Personal Goals

A torn elections poster of Netanyahu in 1999. (Getty Images file)
A torn elections poster of Netanyahu in 1999. (Getty Images file)

Fifteen years ago, Benjamin Netanyahu’s father Benzion was asked to give an opinion about his son, the prime minister of Israel. He replied: “He is not an idiot.”

Amit Segal, the journalist who asked that question, prides himself as an admirer of Netanyahu. He asked his question not to cast doubt on the PM, but to understand a statement Netanyahu had made about the two-state solution at Bar-Ilan University in 2009.

Netanyahu had expressed his support for the two-state solution, to which his father clarified that he does not. “He imposed conditions that the Arabs would not accept,” he explained. “This is the land of the Jews. There’s no room for Arabs here.” The conditions were the Palestinians’ recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and that the Palestinian state be stripped of weapons. He also demanded that the issue of Palestinian refugees be resolved outside Israel’s borders.

Netanyahu’s remarks at Bar-Ilan were made just days after Barack Obama became president of the United States and demanded an end to Israeli settlements and expressed his support to the two-state solution. “Lasting peace requires more than a long ceasefire, and that's why I will sustain an active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security,” Obama said at the time.

Obama became president in January 2009, Netanyahu became prime minister in March and the US president welcomed the PM at the White House in May that year. Visiting Cairo in June, Obama pledged to open a new page of relations with the Arab and Muslim worlds. Ten days later, Netanyahu made his comments at Bar-Ilan, effectively undermining Obama’s statements.

Six years earlier, Netanyahu was a finance minister in Ariel Sharon’s government. His father Benzion was asked whether he would fit to become prime minister, to which he replied: “No, he’s better at being a foreign minister.” In his understanding, the position of foreign minister fits someone who is good at talking and delivering speeches, who enjoys cocktail parties and does not like to work. Who knows a person better than their father?

From selling furniture to politics

The problem today is that this son is leading a country at the heart of developments in the Middle East and world. People dealing with this son are heads of state, kings, commanders of armies and intelligence directors. He is controlling the lives of people, who have all had bitter experiences with Netanyahu.

You’ll find few people who have figured out Netanyahu. He always has the ability to surprise and often, to shock. There is one thing he knows how to do very well and that is to put his personal interests above all else. Nothing will stop him from getting what he wants. The most important weapon in his arsenal is his marketing skills.

Netanyahu started off as a furniture salesman in the United States. He was adept at selling worthless furniture by marketing them as something valuable. If the store owner wanted to get rid of some old stock, he tasked Netanyahu with the job. Netanyahu would market them as though they were the store’s best merchandise. He was a proficient liar, his face never betraying the truth. He took and never paid anything in return. And he succeeded because he was a good talker.

Before the owner could expose him, he quit to pursue a life in politics. He was named Israel’s representative at the United Nations, then deputy foreign minister, and later foreign minister. He assumed the post of finance minister before becoming prime minister, a post he has held for a record time in Israel.

Netanyahu announces his return to political life in 2000 after Barak’s election win. (Getty Images file)

Netanyahu brought all of his marketing skills and tricks to his political life. The best example of this is how he created the Philadelphi Corridor problem to obstruct any prisoner swap. Thirty-one years earlier, he created another problem which he used to become prime minister for the first time.

In 1993, when he was vying for the post against three rivals, Netanyahu requested airtime on Israel’s biggest state television at the time to divulge a major scandal. He admitted on television that he had committed adultery and that one of the candidates for the position of prime minister was blackmailing him about it. By choosing to admit to the extramarital affair and implicate a candidate in the process, Netanyahu successfully manipulated the public into supporting, rather than condemning, him. In the end, he won the race with 52 percent of the vote.

Exploiting weakness

Marketing is therefore in Netanyahu’s DNA. He sets a target for himself and sets out to obtain it through means of his own choosing or invention. He is good at reading people, whom he views as clients, and sniffs out their weaknesses, which he will exploit to achieve his goals.

It may be a dirty approach, it may be full of lies and deceit, it may cost his country, people and party, but it is worth it for Netanyahu if in the end someone still remains to cheer him on. A behavioral expert noted that one of Netanyahu’s best assets was his ability to deliver short and simple messages that resonate with the people. It’s not important whether these messages are true or not, but it’s important that they resonate and leave an impact. He also uses the language of “us” and “them”, always making sure to have a rival.

Ultimately, it has become evident that Netanyahu cares about himself more than anything else. He has become an expert in eliminating anything standing in his way. He built for himself a limited paradoxical base of right-wing supporters. The majority of them are from the poor class, even though his policies are often very capitalist.

Throughout his career, he has managed to destroy parties that competed against him. In 2009, he faced off against Ehud Barak. Barak had commanded Netanyahu in the army. In 1999, Barak defeated him in the elections, winning the position of prime minister. Later, Netanyahu, as PM, would persuade Barak to join his government as defense minister. Barak did and eventually Netanyahu saw to the destruction of the Labor party and Barak quit politics. He did the same thing to Yair Lapid, Benny Gantz and Moshe Kahlon.

Netanyahu and his wife Sara during a visit to Paris. (Getty Images file)

Love of money and gifts

Over his long career, Netanyahu’s weakness has been exposed to be his love of money and receiving gifts. He boasts a fortune of 23 million dollars and earns a monthly salary of around 20,000 dollars. He amassed his fortune from high wages and delivering seminars. He is in high demand to deliver them across the globe, especially the US.

More important than his income, which he collects through his hard work, are his expenses. Netanyahu is known to be frugal in his expenses and that all of them are actually covered by the state, as opposed to his predecessors, who paid out of their own pocket. Netanyahu has no friends, but he is keen on forging good relations with major capitalists. He judges how close his relations are with them according to the value of the gifts they give him. He is especially fond of lavish gifts. If an acquaintance were to gift his wife a gold necklace, he would unashamedly ask about the matching rings and earrings.

Such habits ultimately led to charges that he received bribes and that he exploited his position to solicit favors. Netanyahu is aware that if convicted, the corruption charges could land him in jail. It is political life and death for him. If he leaves his post, then it will be easy to convict and imprison him. If he remains in power, then his trial will continue at a very slow pace as it is today. The trial opened four years ago and it is still in the witness testimony phase.

If he remains on as prime minister, he will also be able to prevent the establishment of an official investigation commission to probe the October 7 attack by Hamas. He will be able to use his position to press for changing judges.

14 September 2024, Israel, Tel Aviv: An Israeli Protester holds up a placard showing the face of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with bloodies palm on it, during a demonstration. (dpa)

Coalition

Netanyahu has also managed to cobble together a strong government coalition of 64 lawmakers out of 120. It is comprised of members of his Likud party, as well as religious and settler groups. They all have an interest in sticking together. The religious groups are amassing massive funds for their schools and institutions, while the settlers are winning settlement expansions and aborting the two-state solution and erasing the Palestinian cause. The Likud, meanwhile, has managed to eliminate any internal opposition.

This coalition and around 20 percent of Israeli voters form Netanyahu’s still unshakable popular base. He primarily relies on this base and prioritizes it above all else – even the hostages in Gaza. The relatives of the hostages are in disbelief that their loved ones’ lives are being wasted because of Netanyahu’s political and popular interests.

The base is more important than the soldiers being killed for nothing in Gaza. It is more important than the leaders of security agencies and the military who believe that Netanyahu’s policy is causing Israel strategic security harm. It is more important than the American administration that still stands by the PM’s side despite the deep differences between them and even as he drags it towards major crises, and is still trying to lure it into regional war. Even with all of this support, Netanyahu is unhappy with Washington - which wants an end to the Gaza war – going so far as to voice his backing for Donald Trump as president just to spite the administration.



Why is North Korea Ramping Up Criticism of Japan?

News coverage showing file footage of a North Korean missile launch is seen on a screen at Seoul Station in Seoul on August 12, 2026. (Photo by GREG BAKER / AFP)
News coverage showing file footage of a North Korean missile launch is seen on a screen at Seoul Station in Seoul on August 12, 2026. (Photo by GREG BAKER / AFP)
TT

Why is North Korea Ramping Up Criticism of Japan?

News coverage showing file footage of a North Korean missile launch is seen on a screen at Seoul Station in Seoul on August 12, 2026. (Photo by GREG BAKER / AFP)
News coverage showing file footage of a North Korean missile launch is seen on a screen at Seoul Station in Seoul on August 12, 2026. (Photo by GREG BAKER / AFP)

North Korea has stepped up a campaign of rhetoric against Japan's military ‌buildup and its security ties with the United States and South Korea, saying they threaten regional stability. The criticism in more than a dozen state media attacks since early July has coincided with an unusual silence over the North's own missile launches, raising questions about Pyongyang's broader strategic messaging, according to Reuters.

WHY IS NORTH KOREA TALKING MORE ABOUT JAPAN?

North Korean statements have targeted Japan's acquisition of counter-strike capabilities, testing of a US-made Tomahawk cruise missile, rising defense spending and Tokyo's annual defense white paper.

Last week, Kim Yo Jong, the influential sister of leader Kim Jong Un, warned of "additional military options" in response to what she described as Japan's transformation into a military power. On Tuesday, a KCNA commentary described Japan's 2026 defense white paper as a "re-invasion-minded" document aimed at justifying military expansion.

The latest broadside came on Friday, when North Korea criticized annual US-South Korean Ulchi Freedom Shield military drills and accused US-Japan-South Korea military cooperation of evolving into a "nuclear alliance". Washington and Seoul say the drills are defensive.

Another KCNA commentary accused Washington of pursuing a strategy that lowers the threshold for nuclear weapons use and cited US extended deterrence commitments to South Korea and Japan.

HOW HAS ‌JAPAN CHANGED ITS ‌DEFENCE STANCE?

Japan in 2022 announced plans to double defense spending to 2% of GDP to ‌counter ⁠growing security threats ⁠from China, Russia and North Korea.

A major part of that expansion includes spending on long-range missiles such as the US-made Tomahawk, which can strike targets more than 1,000 km (621 miles) away. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s government is expected this year to revise Japan’s national security strategy, a move some analysts will likely lead to further increases in defense spending, including on drones and arms production.

IS THIS REALLY ABOUT JAPAN?

Analysts say Japan is only part of the story.

Park Won-gon, a professor at Seoul's Ewha Womans University, said the primary goal is to frame Northeast Asia as a contest between rival camps.

"The biggest objective is to create a US-South Korea-Japan versus North Korea-China-Russia framework," Park said.

He said Pyongyang wants stronger backing ⁠from Beijing and Moscow to cement its escape from diplomatic isolation and to bolster arguments that its ‌nuclear arsenal is necessary.

South Korea's Unification Ministry expressed a similar view on Thursday after ‌North Korean First Vice Foreign Minister Jang Kum-chol criticized Seoul's plans to acquire nuclear-powered submarines and accused South Korea, the United States and Japan of ‌preparing a "second AUKUS" in Northeast Asia. The ministry said North Korea appears to view South Korea's submarine plans, Japan's evolving security posture ‌and trilateral military cooperation as threats to the regional balance of power, as it increasingly aligns itself with China and Russia. Kyungnam University professor of North Korean studies Lim Eul-chul said North Korea's messaging increasingly mirrors China's concerns about Japan's military expansion.

WHY IS NORTH KOREA STAYING SILENT ABOUT ITS MISSILE TESTS?

The heightened rhetoric has coincided with unusual silence on North Korea's recent missile launches, which were condemned by South Korea, Japan and the United States.

Despite conducting ‌ballistic missile tests last week and again this week, state media has yet to report either, departing from its usual pattern of publicizing tests within a day.

Analysts say the launches may ⁠have involved upgrades to existing missile ⁠systems rather than new weapons, reducing their propaganda value. Shin Jong-woo of the Korea Defense and Security Forum said the tests may have involved improved short-range ballistic missiles developed with Russian technical assistance and potentially destined for Russia.

Kim Yong-hyun, a professor at Dongguk University, said North Korea may be avoiding publicity if launches are connected to prospective military exports.

WHAT DOES RUSSIA HAVE TO DO WITH IT?

North Korea's growing military cooperation with Russia has become a central factor in assessments of its weapons programs. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has repeatedly said Russia continues to use North Korean missiles against Ukraine and has accused Pyongyang of providing Moscow with missiles, ammunition and a further promise of troops for the war effort.

Analysts say battlefield feedback and Russian assistance may have helped North Korea improve the accuracy and performance of some missile systems.

Shin said recent launches could have been tests of upgraded variants before deployment or export.

WHAT IS NORTH KOREA TRYING TO ACHIEVE?

Analysts say North Korea is seeking to cast the region in terms of competing blocs, with Pyongyang, Beijing and Moscow on one side and Washington, Seoul and Tokyo on the other.

Portraying US-South Korea-Japan cooperation as an increasingly threatening military and nuclear alliance helps Pyongyang justify its weapons programs, bolster Chinese and Russian backing and argue that its nuclear arsenal is a necessary response to a worsening security environment, they say.


Mazen Al-Sudairi Brings Financial Expertise as Saudi Market Expands Globally

Mazen bin Turki Al-Sudairi (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Mazen bin Turki Al-Sudairi (Asharq Al-Awsat)
TT

Mazen Al-Sudairi Brings Financial Expertise as Saudi Market Expands Globally

Mazen bin Turki Al-Sudairi (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Mazen bin Turki Al-Sudairi (Asharq Al-Awsat)

Mazen bin Turki Al-Sudairi will lead the board of Saudi Arabia’s Capital Market Authority after a royal order appointed him chairman with the rank of minister, as the kingdom’s capital market rapidly expands, deepens its offerings, strengthens ties with global markets and seeks to attract more foreign investment.

Al-Sudairi brings a career rooted in financial markets and investment before moving into government and policymaking, combining technical expertise in market analysis with institutional experience inside government.

His appointment comes as Saudi Arabia’s capital market enters a new phase of growth focused on greater depth and openness, a broader investor base and a stronger presence in global markets, alongside the economic and investment transformation under Saudi Vision 2030.

The royal order appointed Al-Sudairi chairman of the Capital Market Authority’s board with the rank of minister, succeeding Mohammed El-Kuwaiz. He takes charge of the market regulator as the financial sector assumes an increasingly important role in financing economic growth and attracting domestic and international capital.

Since 2024, Al-Sudairi has served as an adviser at the General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers at an excellent grade, adding a government dimension to his background in finance and investment. The role broadened his experience from analyzing markets and investments to working in an environment closely connected to policymaking and decision-making.

He holds a master’s degree in finance from HEC Paris in France and a bachelor’s degree in industrial engineering from King Saud University, an academic background combining financial knowledge with the analytical and quantitative training associated with engineering.

Al-Sudairi has extensive experience in financial services and capital markets. He served as head of research at Al Rajhi Capital, where he monitored company and sector performance and analyzed economic and financial developments and their impact on investor decisions.

He also headed sell-side research at Al-Istithmar Capital, adding experience in managing investment research and responding to market developments and investor needs during a period of rapid regulatory and investment change in the Saudi market.

Earlier, Al-Sudairi worked as an analyst covering the energy and petrochemicals sectors at Samba Capital, two of the most influential sectors in the Saudi economy and capital market. The role gave him direct experience analyzing companies and industries exposed to energy markets, global developments, commodity prices and economic cycles.

His career also took him outside Saudi Arabia, where he worked in equity research at Bank Degroof in Belgium. The experience added an international dimension to his background and gave him practical exposure to market and company analysis in a European financial environment.

Al-Sudairi is a recognized name in financial research and market analysis, having built experience across Saudi and international financial and investment institutions. His roles have been closely tied to assessing markets, analyzing companies and sectors, and evaluating investment opportunities.

His career spans financial and economic analysis, investment research and government work. After years of leading research functions at Saudi financial institutions and analyzing equities and sectors, his move into government added experience in institutional work and policymaking.

Al-Sudairi takes the helm of the Capital Market Authority’s board as the market becomes increasingly important as a channel for financing companies and projects, supporting private-sector growth, expanding savings and investment options, and connecting the Saudi economy more closely with global capital flows.


From War Amnesty to Prison Amnesty... What Has Changed in Lebanon in 35 Years?

A general view of parliament building in Beirut, Lebanon, March 24, 2026. (Reuters)
A general view of parliament building in Beirut, Lebanon, March 24, 2026. (Reuters)
TT

From War Amnesty to Prison Amnesty... What Has Changed in Lebanon in 35 Years?

A general view of parliament building in Beirut, Lebanon, March 24, 2026. (Reuters)
A general view of parliament building in Beirut, Lebanon, March 24, 2026. (Reuters)

The Lebanese parliament's landmark approval of an amnesty law on Wednesday, 35 years after the 1991 amnesty, has revived debate on the different circumstances that prompted Lebanon to resort to amnesty twice.

While the first was enacted to turn the page on the 1975-90 civil war and kick off a new political chapter in the country, the 2026 law came to address the conditions of detainees and convicts, prolonged detentions, and the prison crisis, amid political considerations that led to parliament to ratify it.

‘Public oblivion’

Former Minister of Social Affairs Rashid Derbas brought the discussion back to the philosophy of amnesty itself, telling Asharq Al-Awsat that "the general amnesty issued in 1991 came following the civil war, in hopes of closing a chapter and entering a new era."

He explained that "the philosophy of general amnesty is fundamentally based on establishing public oblivion, meaning closing a page of the past and opening a new one."

Commenting on the current amnesty law, Derbas wondered: "Is it reasonable for a person to remain all this long time without a trial? Is it reasonable for certain accusations and cases to drag on to this extent? It was necessary to address this issue,” but unfortunately, it fell victim to political wrangling for years.

Former Justice Minister Ibrahim Najjar drew a legal and political distinction between the two experiences, telling Asharq Al-Awsat that "there is a very big difference between the law of August 26, 1991, and the law of August 12, 2026."

He explained that "from a political standpoint, the 1991 general amnesty law aimed to turn the page on the war and conclude all prosecutions associated with it. This is evidenced by the fact that it broadly covered crimes committed before March 28, 1991, specifically war-related crimes of a political nature, with some specific exceptions."

Najjar added that "the 1991 law therefore had a political, reconciliatory character, meaning it aimed to restore the smooth functioning of coexistence, which was its primary political goal."

As for the new legislation, he placed it in a different framework, stating that "the 2026 law has specific political dimensions in Lebanon and Syria, in addition to being related to prison conditions and the high number of detainees and convicts."

Najjar stressed that "the law issued on Wednesday is not a general amnesty for crimes committed before a specific date, because it targets specific categories and cases. It is closer to a socio-penal law concerned with addressing the conditions of detainees and convicts through an exceptional reduction of certain sentences."

He pointed out that "the 2026 law excluded many crimes and felonies, including the killing of military personnel, crimes referred to the Judicial Council, premeditated murder, money laundering, financial crimes, and drug felonies."

"This Lebanese law has clear Syrian dimensions, and it has also benefited some Lebanese who had sought refuge in Israel," he added.

Lebanese lawmakers attend a parliamentary session to discuss a proposed general amnesty law, the abolition of the death penalty and the salaries of retired members of Lebanon's security forces in Beirut, Lebanon, 11 August 2026. (EPA)

Political settlement

Former MP and Minister Butros Harb interpreted the current law from an angle that combines politics and humanitarian considerations.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, Harb stated: "In part, the current amnesty is a political settlement more than a purely judicial move, even though it includes a humanitarian aspect that cannot be ignored."

At the same time, he stressed that addressing the conditions of prisoners should not lead to "overlooking the rights of the Lebanese Army and its victims, particularly in cases related to those who engaged in clashes with it."

He explained that "there is a humanitarian aspect that must be taken into account, because the Lebanese judiciary was influenced at certain stages and did not exercise its powers with the required speed, whether in terms of settling cases or issuing verdicts."

He noted that "there are individuals who spent long periods in prison that, in some cases, exceeded the sentence that could have been issued against them had they been tried within normal timeframes."

This "demands a humanitarian and legal solution to the problem," he remarked.

However, he noted that the amnesty file "has also unfortunately turned into a subject of sectarian debates, especially regarding the cases of Islamists who fought the army."

Harb criticized the double standards related to the army in the ongoing debate. "Some of those who today declare their concern for the army were, unfortunately, among the forces that helped inflict major losses on it, whether during the Lebanese civil war or in the clashes the country witnessed in later years."

The issue must not turn into fodder for political debates at the expense of the army or the rights of its victims, he urged.

‘Fundamentally different’

He said the 1991 and current amnesty are "fundamentally different."

He explained that the 1991 amnesty happened during "exceptional political circumstances that followed the Taif Agreement" and the end of the civil war.

"At that time, Lebanon was emerging from a long war, and it was necessary to turn the page on that chapter and enter a new era allowing the rebuilding of the state. Therefore, the amnesty was part of a broader national political settlement."

"Today, however, the problem is different even if it has a political aspect because it is primarily linked to a judicial and humanitarian failure that must be addressed," Harb stressed.

"The issue required a solution because it is unacceptable for individuals to remain in prison for years due to delayed trials or the failure to settle their cases," he said.