The devastation of Gaza is at intolerable levels and getting worse; the Israeli government is under intense pressure from the families of hostages to do far more to free them before they perish; the United States and Arab states, anxious to avoid a regional war, are trying to mediate an end to the conflict. But Mr. Netanyahu blocks the way.
As a majority of Israelis and their allies can see, Mr. Netanyahu and his insistence on “total victory” over Hamas, with no consideration of the consequences or costs, have become a part of the problem. He is playing a cynical game, using the war to serve his political ends, and Israelis, most of whom support the effort to wipe out Hamas, are getting tired of it.
He has even managed to alienate Israel’s most important ally. Despite President Biden’s display of total support for Israel — and Mr. Netanyahu — after the atrocious attack by Hamas on Oct. 7, including the president’s personal visit to the Jewish state, Mr. Netanyahu has deliberately and publicly defied American advice as contrary to Israel’s “vital interests.” A particularly contentious conversation in late December ended with Mr. Biden angrily declaring, “This conversation is over.” It was a month before Mr. Biden phoned again.
The problem is not necessarily Mr. Netanyahu’s hawkish stance, which is shared by many Israelis enraged by the barbaric Hamas raid. It is Mr. Netanyahu’s confusion of leadership with political survival, with the widespread perception that he opposes any negotiated settlement and any American advice or mediation not because he really believes they run counter to Israelis’ interests, as he claims, but because appearing to stand up to “American pressure” and portraying the Gaza war as a far broader conflict about a Palestinian state and Iran serve his political ends.
That, at least, appears to be what a majority of Israelis believe, even those who might otherwise align with the prime minister’s insistence on trying to fully eradicate Hamas. According to a political poll taken in late December, only 15 percent of Israelis wanted him to stay in office after the war ended.
Beyond Israel’s borders, the scale of casualties and destruction in Gaza is increasingly drawing horror. According to the health ministry in Gaza, more than 26,000 people have been killed, and vast tracts of the narrow strip of land have been leveled. On Friday, the International Court of Justice in The Hague, part of the United Nations, said that Israel must take action to prevent acts of genocide by its forces in Gaza, as well as to allow more aid into the enclave. The ruling, an initial step in a case brought by South Africa accusing Israel of genocide, stopped short of calling on Israel to immediately suspend its military campaign, but it contributed to the pressure on Israel to find ways of disengaging.
How the war ends, however, and what happens after Gaza, as Israeli commentators phrase it, strongly depend on who is in charge. Key members of the war cabinet formed to manage the fighting, Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, both former military chiefs of staff, are known to differ strongly with Mr. Netanyahu, especially on the painful question of the Israeli hostages held by Hamas, believed to be 129 women and men.
Israel has historically gone to great lengths to get back captives and even the remains of those who perish, so the fate of the hostages is central in the internal Israeli debate on the war. Their families have campaigned passionately to have the release of the hostages a priority in any deliberations on the conduct of the war, fearing, as Mr. Eisenkot said in an interview, that “it is impossible to return the hostages alive in the near future without an agreement.” Mr. Netanyahu and his right-wing backers have insisted that only relentless military pressure on Hamas can lead to their freedom.
The hostages are also central to efforts by three key players — the United States, Israel’s main supporter; Egypt, an Arab country bordering Israel and Gaza; and Qatar, a major donor to Gaza — to mediate. Their goal is a phased process that, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal on Jan. 21, would start with a release of the captives and lead to a permanent cease-fire.
It’s a long shot, in part because the Hamas leadership is split between the combat wing inside Gaza and leaders outside. But the Biden administration believes that without any diplomatic process, an even more dangerous war could break out with Hezbollah on Israel’s northern border and that the Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea could escalate into broader regional strife involving Iran. In the administration’s view, moreover, the task of reconstructing and governing Gaza in ways that would satisfy Israel’s security is more feasible today than ever before because Arab and Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, have shown a new readiness to normalize relations with Israel.
But, as Secretary of State Antony Blinken noted in Davos, the Arab states and the United States would insist “that this has to include a pathway to a Palestinian state.”
That is where Mr. Netanyahu stands solidly in the way. He has offered no true after-Gaza plan of his own but instead has positioned himself as the one man blocking a Palestinian state in the West Bank or Gaza and as the one Israeli leader prepared to stand up to Mr. Biden’s efforts to end the war. He has said that once the Gaza war is over, he would work on “full Israeli security control of all territory west of the Jordan River,” implying a full return to complete military occupation.
There are certainly questions to debate here, and Israel’s insistence on eliminating the threat from Hamas is fully justified. But the hard and often unpopular choices that Israel must make to wring a lasting victory from this war require a real leader. As the Times editorial board has argued, “Mr. Netanyahu cannot lead Israel in the search for peace.” His government “has steadfastly worked against a settlement with the Palestinians.”
Mr. Netanyahu has lost the confidence of his people and his allies. A political wizard who has been in the prime minister’s office for a total of 16 years since 1996, he has spent the last few years under indictment for corruption and in desperate efforts to stay in office. The last gambit was to bring far-right nationalists into his cabinet and to initiate a challenge to judicial oversight over the government, prompting weeks of massive protests.
