In a genocidal state, even Netanyahu is seen as ‘too pro-Palestine’

There is something deeply absurd about Israeli politics ahead of the 27th October election. Benjamin Netanyahu — the man who steadfastly has been rejecting Palestinian statehood for ages, expanding settlements and waging a destructive genocidal campaign in Gaza is now being attacked for being too soft on the Palestinians. Apparently, even Netanyahu is not anti-Palestinian enough for today’s Israeli extremist settler-occupiers. 

That alone tells us how far Zionist politics has shifted. In a genocidal state facing international criticism over its conduct in Gaza, Netanyahu somehow finds himself portrayed as the moderate in the room. That would almost be funny if the consequences were not deadly.

The latest attack comes from hardline politician Avigdor Liberman, a long-time rival of Netanyahu from Israel’s extremist camp, who has used Netanyahu’s own political history against him. He reminded voters that Netanyahu once publicly accepted the possibility of a Palestinian state in his famous 2009 Bar-Ilan speech.

In today’s Zionist-Israeli political landscape, merely uttering the words “Palestinian state” can apparently be cited as evidence of suspicious sympathy towards Palestinians. This is despite Netanyahu having spent much of the period since then doing everything possible to prevent Palestinian statehood under his leadership. Yet he can still be portrayed as insufficiently committed to crushing the Palestinian legitimate political aspirations.

For decades, Netanyahu’s political formula was simple: present himself as Israel’s toughest defender, accuse opponents of being weak on security, warn voters about Palestinians, Iran and terrorism and portray almost every diplomatic concession as an existential danger.

It worked remarkably well at first. Netanyahu helped drag Israel’s political centre steadily to the extremist right. But there is a problem with constantly moving the political goalposts: eventually, somebody moves even further than you. And that is exactly what has happened. 

READ: Israeli poll finds only 37% believe Israel won Gaza war

Netanyahu now faces a political monster partly of his own making. After years of convincing Israelis that Palestinian rights are irrelevant, Palestinian statehood is dangerous and compromise represents weakness, his rivals accuse him of being soft whenever he shows even tactical restraint — whether because of American pressure, hostage negotiations, military calculations or growing international isolation.

Nevertheless, calling Netanyahu “too pro-Palestinian” is simply ridiculous. No observer would describe his policies that way. Under his leadership, Gaza has been devastated, tens of thousands of Palestinians have been mercilessly slaughtered, much of the territory has been destroyed or rendered uninhabitable and Israel’s genocide acts have faced international institutions and condemnation at an unprecedented level.

Yet domestically, Netanyahu can still be criticised for not going far enough. That should concern anyone who imagines that removing Netanyahu would automatically produce a more moderate Israel.

Hardly anyone in Zionist Israel is a “moderate”. Netanyahu may lose an election but Netanyahuism — the politics of permanent confrontation, conflict or war, settlement expansion, rejection of Palestinian sovereignty and fear-driven nationalism may easily outlive Netanyahu himself. 

In fact, Israel’s next generation of extreme right-wing politicians may prove even more uncompromising. The irony is that Netanyahu spent decades moving Israeli politics to the right, only to discover that this “political right” has now moved far beyond him into the extremes.

This brings us to Netanyahu’s other major problem: the election. For years, he appeared almost politically indestructible. Scandals came and went. Criminal proceedings failed to remove him. Israel went through election after election, yet Netanyahu repeatedly returned. His political brand rested heavily on one idea: security. He was the experienced statesman who supposedly understood Israel’s enemies better than anyone else.

READ: Palestinian Education Ministry says more than 90% of Gaza schools destroyed during three years of war

Then came 7th October 2023, which represented one of the most catastrophic security failures in Israeli history and it happened while Netanyahu was prime minister. 

The subsequent genocidal attack on Gaza may have restored some Israeli military deterrence in the eyes of Netanyahu’s supporters. However, it did not erase the original failure. Nor has the prolonged war delivered the clean political victory Netanyahu repeatedly promised. This makes the 2026 election particularly dangerous for him. 

He had long convinced Israelis that only the hardest possible approach could guarantee “security”. Now, politicians further to his extreme right are using the same argument against him. Netanyahu warned that his opponents were too soft; now he is the one being called soft. He pushed Israeli politics towards permanent confrontation and now that very politics is consuming him.

Netanyahu’s greatest threat may no longer come from Israel’s left-wing, which of course is not the choice for Zionist Israelis, the international community or even his corruption cases. It may come from the political culture he helped create, one in which even he himself can somehow be accused of being too pro-Palestine. 

And if Benjamin Netanyahu, of all people, is now considered the “moderate,” the more disturbing question is what kind of Israeli leadership could come after him?

OPINION: Malaysia’s Israel ban policy is not Washington’s to dictate

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.