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.



Trump’s Anger Over Iran Thrusts NATO into Fresh Crisis

A NATO flag flutters at the Tapa military base, Estonia April 30, 2023. (Reuters)
A NATO flag flutters at the Tapa military base, Estonia April 30, 2023. (Reuters)
TT

Trump’s Anger Over Iran Thrusts NATO into Fresh Crisis

A NATO flag flutters at the Tapa military base, Estonia April 30, 2023. (Reuters)
A NATO flag flutters at the Tapa military base, Estonia April 30, 2023. (Reuters)

The NATO alliance has in recent years survived existential challenges - ranging from the war in Ukraine to multiple bouts of pressure and insults from US President Donald Trump, who has questioned its core mission and threatened to seize Greenland.

But it is the US-Israeli war with Iran, thousands of miles from Europe, that has nearly broken the 76-year-old bloc and threatens to leave it in its weakest state since its creation, say analysts and diplomats.

Trump, enraged that European countries have declined to send their navies to open up the Strait of Hormuz to global shipping following the start of the air war on Feb 28, has declared he is considering withdrawing from the alliance.

"Wouldn't you if you were me?" Trump asked Reuters in a Wednesday interview.

In a speech on Wednesday night, Trump criticized US allies but stopped short of condemning NATO, as many experts thought he might.

But combined with other barbs aimed at Europeans in recent weeks, Trump's comments have provoked unprecedented concern that the US will not come to the aid of European allies should they be attacked, whether or not Washington formally walks away.

The result, say analysts and diplomats, is that the alliance created in the Cold War that has long served as the basic fabric of European security is fraying and the mutual defense agreement at its core is no longer taken as a given.

"This is the worst place (NATO) has been since it was founded," said Max Bergmann, a former State Department official who now leads the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

"It's really hard to ‌think of anything that ‌even comes close."

That reality is sinking in for Europeans, who have counted on NATO as a bulwark against an increasingly assertive Russia.

As recently ‌as February, ⁠NATO Secretary-General Mark ⁠Rutte had dismissed the idea of Europe defending itself without the US as a "silly thought." Now, many officials and diplomats consider it the default expectation.

"NATO remains necessary, but we must be capable of thinking of NATO without the Americans," said General Francois Lecointre, who served as France's armed forces chief from 2017 to 2021.

"Whether it should even continue to be called NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization - is a valid question."

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said: “President Trump has made his disappointment with NATO and other allies clear, and as the President emphasized, ‘the United States will remember.’”

A NATO representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT

NATO has been challenged before, not least during Trump's first term from 2017 to 2021, when he also considered withdrawing from the alliance.

But while many European officials until recently believed that Trump could be kept on board with pomp and flattery, fewer now hold that belief, according to conversations with dozens of former and current US and European officials.

Trump and his officials have expressed frustration over what they see as NATO's unwillingness to help the United ⁠States in a time of need, including by not directly assisting with the Strait of Hormuz and by restricting US use of some airfields and ‌airspace. US officials have declared NATO cannot be a "one-way street".

European officials counter that they have not received US requests for specific ‌assets for a mission to open the strait and complain that Washington has been inconsistent about whether such a mission would operate during or after the war.

"It's a terrible situation for NATO to be in," said ‌Jamie Shea, a former senior NATO official who is now a senior fellow at the Friends of Europe think tank.

"It is a blow to the allies who, since Trump returned to ‌the White House, have worked hard to show that they are willing and able to take more responsibility (for their own defense)."

Trump's latest comments follow other signs of an increasingly unsteady alliance.

Those include his stepped-up threats in January to wrest Greenland away from Denmark and recent moves by the US that Europeans see as particularly accommodating toward Russia, which NATO defines as its principal security threat.

The administration has remained essentially mum amid reports that Moscow has provided targeting data for Iran to attack US assets in the Middle East and has lifted sanctions on Russian oil in a bid to ease global energy prices that have spiked during the war.

At a meeting of G7 foreign ministers ‌near Paris last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Kaja Kallas, the foreign policy chief of the European Union, had a tense exchange, according to five people familiar with the matter, underlining the increasingly fraught transatlantic relationship.

Kallas asked when US patience with Russian President Vladimir ⁠Putin would run out over Ukraine peace negotiations, prompting Rubio ⁠to respond with irritation that the US was trying to end the war while also providing support to Ukraine, but the EU was welcome to mediate if it wanted to.

NO GOING BACK

Legally, Trump may lack the authority to withdraw from NATO. Under a law passed in 2023, a US president cannot exit the alliance without the consent of two-thirds of the US Senate, a nearly impossible threshold.

But analysts say that, as commander-in-chief, Trump can decide whether the US military will defend NATO members. Declining to do so could imperil the alliance without a formal withdrawal.

To be sure, not everyone sees the current crisis as existential. One French diplomat described the president's rhetoric as a passing temper tantrum.

Trump has changed his position on NATO before.

In 2024, he said on the campaign trail that he would encourage Putin to attack NATO members that do not pay their fair share on defense. By the last annual NATO summit, in June 2025, the alliance was in his good graces, with Trump delivering a speech effusively praising European leaders as people who "love their countries."

Next week, Rutte, the NATO secretary-general, who has a strong relationship with Trump, is set to visit Washington in an effort to change Trump's view once again.

Analysts say European nations have good reason to keep the US engaged in NATO despite doubts over whether Trump would come to their defense. Among other reasons, the US military provides a range of capabilities NATO can't easily replace, such as satellite intelligence.

Even if Trump and the Europeans find a way to stay together in NATO, diplomats, analysts and officials say, the transatlantic alliance that has been central to the global order since World War Two may never be the same.

"I do think we're turning the page of 80 years of working together," said Julianne Smith, the US ambassador to NATO under Democratic President Joe Biden.

"I don't think it means the end of the transatlantic relationship, but we're on the cusp of something that's going to have a different look and feel to it."


A Look at the UK’s Royal Navy, Which Has Faced Jibe After Jibe from Trump and Hegseth

Indonesian soldiers stand guard as Royal Navy offshore patrol vessel HMS Spey is docked at Tanjung Priok Port during a port visit in Jakarta, Indonesia, Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Tatan Syuflana, File)
Indonesian soldiers stand guard as Royal Navy offshore patrol vessel HMS Spey is docked at Tanjung Priok Port during a port visit in Jakarta, Indonesia, Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Tatan Syuflana, File)
TT

A Look at the UK’s Royal Navy, Which Has Faced Jibe After Jibe from Trump and Hegseth

Indonesian soldiers stand guard as Royal Navy offshore patrol vessel HMS Spey is docked at Tanjung Priok Port during a port visit in Jakarta, Indonesia, Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Tatan Syuflana, File)
Indonesian soldiers stand guard as Royal Navy offshore patrol vessel HMS Spey is docked at Tanjung Priok Port during a port visit in Jakarta, Indonesia, Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Tatan Syuflana, File)

US President Donald Trump and his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have been damning of the UK's naval capabilities. Their jibes may have stung in a country with a long and proud maritime history, but they do carry some substance.

The UK has been at the forefront of Trump’s ire since the onset of the Iran war on Feb. 28, when British Prime Minister Keir Starmer refused to grant the US military access to British bases.

Though that decision has been partly reversed with the decision to permit the US to use the bases, including that of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, for so-called defensive purposes, Trump is adamant he was let down. He has repeatedly lashed out at Starmer and branded the Royal Navy’s two aircraft carriers as “toys.”

“You don’t even have a navy,” he told Britain's Daily Telegraph in comments published Wednesday. "You’re too old and had aircraft carriers that didn’t work.”

Hegseth, meanwhile, said sarcastically that the “big, bad Royal Navy” should get involved in making the Strait of Hormuz safe for commercial shipping.

For numerous reasons, the Royal Navy is not as big and bad as it used to be when Britannia ruled the waves. But it's not as feeble as Trump and Hegseth imply and is largely similar with the French navy, which it is often compared with.

“On the negative side, there is a grain of truth, with the Royal Navy being smaller than it has been in hundreds of years,” said professor Kevin Rowlands, editor of the Royal United Services Institute Journal. “On the positive side, the Royal Navy would say that it’s entering its first period of growth since World War II, with more ships set to be built than in decades.”

Capabilities and preparedness

It’s not that long ago that Britain could muster a task force of 127 ships, including two aircraft carriers, to sail to the south Atlantic after Argentina’s invasion of the Falkland Islands. That 1982 campaign, which then-US President Ronald Reagan was lukewarm about, marked the final hurrah of Britain’s naval pedigree.

Nothing on that scale, or even remotely, could be accomplished now. Since World War II, Britain’s combat-ready fleet has declined substantially, much of it linked to changing military and technological advances and the end of empire. But not all.

The number of vessels in the Royal Navy fleet, including aircraft carriers, destroyers frigates and submarines has fallen from 166 in 1975 to 66 in 2025, according to The Associated Press' analysis of figures from the Ministry of Defense and the House of Commons Library.

Though the Royal Navy has two aircraft carriers at its command, there was a seven-year period in the 2010s when it had none. And the number of destroyers has halved to six while the frigate fleet has been slashed from 60 to just 11.

Diminished state

The Royal Navy faced criticism for the time it took to send the HMS Dragon destroyer to the Middle East after the war with Iran broke out. Though naval officials worked night and day to get it shipshape for a different mission than the one it was readying for, to many it symbolized the extent to which Britain’s military has been gutted since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

For much of the Cold War, Britain was spending between 4% and 8% of its annual national income on its military. After the Cold War, that proportion steadily dropped to a low of 1.9% of GDP in 2018, fuel to Trump's fire.

Like other countries, Britain, largely under the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, sought to use the so-called “peace dividend” following the collapse of the Soviet Union to divert money earmarked for defense to other priorities, such as health and education.

And the austerity measures imposed by the Conservative-led government in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008-9 prevented any pickup in defense spending despite the clear signs of a resurgent Russia, especially after its annexation of Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine.

No quick fix

In the wake of Russia's full-blown invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and with another Middle East war underway, there's a growing understanding across the political divide that the cuts have gone too far.

Following the Ukraine invasion, the Conservatives started to turn the military spending tide around. Since the Labour Party returned to power in 2024, Starmer is seeking to ramp up British defense spending, partly at the cost of cutting the country's long-vaunted aid spending.

Starmer has promised to raise UK defense spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product by 2027, and the updated goal is now for it to rise to 3.5% of GDP by 2035, as part of a NATO agreement pushed by Trump. That, in plain terms, will mean tens of billions pounds more being spent — a lot more kit for the armed forces.

The pressure is on for the government to speed that schedule up. But with the public finances further imperiled by the economic consequences of the Iran war, it's not clear where any additional money will come.

The jibes will likely keep coming even though the critiques are unfair and far from the truth, said RUSI's Rowlands, who was a captain in the Royal Navy.

“We are dealing with an administration that doesn’t do nuance,” he said.


Back to Israeli Occupation of South Lebanon?

Smoke rises from explosions during Israeli military operations in the Lebanese village of Taybeh on April 1, 2026. (AFP)
Smoke rises from explosions during Israeli military operations in the Lebanese village of Taybeh on April 1, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Back to Israeli Occupation of South Lebanon?

Smoke rises from explosions during Israeli military operations in the Lebanese village of Taybeh on April 1, 2026. (AFP)
Smoke rises from explosions during Israeli military operations in the Lebanese village of Taybeh on April 1, 2026. (AFP)

A month into Israel's war against Hezbollah, invading Israeli troops are gradually advancing in south Lebanon, raising fears for the area's fate following the last Israeli occupation that lasted nearly two decades.

Since war erupted last month, Israeli officials have said Israel intends to establish a "security zone" inside Lebanon.

More recently, Defense Minister Israel Katz said the military "will establish itself in a security zone inside Lebanon ... and will maintain security control over the entire area up to the Litani" river, around 30 kilometers (20 miles) from the border.

What is happening on the ground and how far could Israel go?

- What's happening in south Lebanon? -

The Israeli military previously issued unprecedented evacuation orders for swathes of the country's south, where Iran-backed Hezbollah holds sway.

An Israeli military source told AFP that four army divisions are currently deployed across the country's northern border.

A Western military source in south Lebanon said "the Israelis are advancing one axis at a time" and destroying border villages as they go.

The source told AFP on condition of anonymity that Israeli forces had taken the strategic town of Khiam, located along the eastern stretch of the shared border.

Hezbollah, which drew Lebanon into the Middle East war last month with rocket fire towards Israel, has been claiming repeated attacks on Israeli troops in south Lebanon, where Israel's military says 10 soldiers have been killed in combat.

The Iran-backed group is not halting Israeli troops' advance "but is seeking symbolic victories such as the destruction of Merkava tanks", the Western military source said.

David Wood, senior Lebanon analyst at the International Crisis Group, told AFP that as Israel pushes further inside Lebanon, "it is entering a style of warfare that might actually suit Hezbollah better, in this sort of guerrilla hit-and-run style of fighting".

Lebanon's army has announced troop "repositioning and redeployment" in parts of the south where Israel is advancing.

A Lebanese military source said Israeli soldiers have advanced up to 10 kilometers (six miles) in some places, and Lebanon's army, which has limited means, fears it will be targeted or encircled.

Israeli fire has killed one on-duty Lebanese soldier.

United Nations peacekeepers deployed in south Lebanon have been powerless to stop the fighting, with three of their troops also killed.

- What does Israel want? -

Katz has said Israel would control south Lebanon up to the Litani, and vowed that hundreds of thousands of south Lebanon residents will not return until northern Israel's security is guaranteed.

Lebanese Defense Minister Michel Menassa this week denounced "a clear intention to impose a new occupation of Lebanese territory".

UN aid chief Tom Fletcher has warned that south Lebanon could become another occupied territory in the Middle East.

But Eyal Zisser, a Lebanon expert at Tel Aviv University, cautioned against taking Katz's announcements at face value.

"He's good at making statements, but you always have to check first of all if it is in full agreement" with what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says, he told AFP's Jerusalem bureau.

Netanyahu has ordered troops to "further expand" a so-called security zone in south Lebanon "to definitively neutralize the threat of invasion (by Hezbollah) and to keep anti-tank missile fire away from the border".

Military analyst and retired Lebanese army general Khalil Helou told AFP that Hezbollah has "recruited people from southern towns" for decades, giving the group "local power" that Israel fears could be further exploited if southerners return.

- New occupation? -

Israel has previously tried to create a buffer zone in southern Lebanon.

Following a first invasion in 1978, Israeli troops returned four years later, entering Lebanon all the way to Beirut to drive out Palestinian fighters.

Hezbollah was born in response to the 1982 invasion.

Israel withdrew gradually but kept an area up to 20 kilometers deep inside Lebanese territory until 2000, when it pulled out under persistent pressure from Hezbollah.

Lebanese are increasingly concerned about a return to a similar scenario.

In its last war with Hezbollah and even after a November 2024 ceasefire, Israeli troops damaged or destroyed swathes of border villages and towns through strikes, controlled demolitions and the wrecking of agricultural areas.

Zisser said Israel maintaining control of the area south of the Litani was technically feasible.

"But you need to make a decision and you need to decide how to do it, (whether) to occupy the entire territory and establish yourself there" or not, he said.

Wood meanwhile cautioned that an occupation would create "new security threats" for Israel.

"If Israel denies people the right to return to their ancestral homes, then armed resistance groups will emerge or will continue to take up this struggle," he said.