To prevail in the Middle East, Netanyahu must go

Israel’s political future now hinges on a question that transcends its borders: whether Benjamin Netanyahu can remain prime minister without permanently foreclosing the possibility of peace with the Palestinians. The argument that his continued leadership makes lasting reconciliation impossible is not merely partisan rhetoric; it reflects a structural reality shaped by his three-decade dominance of Israeli politics. Netanyahu’s tenure has been defined by deep skepticism toward Palestinian statehood, expansion of settlements in the West Bank, and a strategy that prioritizes security over negotiation. These policies have eroded trust on both sides, creating a vicious cycle where each act of settlement expansion or military escalation is met with reciprocal Palestinian resistance, further entrenching the status quo. What many observers overlook is how Netanyahu’s longevity has warped Israel’s political calculus. Successive governments, even those nominally committed to a two-state solution, have found themselves constrained by his influence. His ability to frame any territorial compromise as a national security risk has made bold peace initiatives politically suicidal for rivals. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority’s weakening grip in the West Bank and the rise of Hamas in Gaza have made negotiations increasingly untenable. The broader significance of this moment is that Israel’s democratic institutions—once a source of resilience—are now being tested by a leadership that seems more invested in preserving power than pursuing peace. The open question is whether Netanyahu’s departure would actually unlock a path to dialogue, or if the political landscape has shifted too far toward maximalist positions on both sides. His potential successors range from hardline nationalists to centrists who might pursue limited agreements, but none have demonstrated the capacity—or willingness—to dismantle the settlement enterprise or confront Israel’s far-right coalition partners. Equally uncertain is whether Hamas, now controlling Gaza, would engage in good faith, or if the Palestinian political vacuum has reached a point of no return. What is clear is that the Middle East’s stability depends on breaking this cycle. Without a bold new leadership—or an unforeseen regional shift—Israel risks entrenching its occupation indefinitely, while the Palestinian cause grows increasingly radicalized. The region cannot afford another decade of paralysis.