Netanyahu’s legacy will not be safe – will be isolation Benjamin Netanyahu star-news.press/wp

Since its foundation in 1948, the heads of Israeli ministers have sought to leave the legacies that would surpass them – some of them through war, others through diplomacy, and a few through historical errors. David bin Gurion obtained the independence of the state and built its foundational institutions. Golda Mir headed the war that cost her office. Menachem began to sign peace with Egypt with the expansion of illegal settlements. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for trying to make peace with the Palestinians.

Every leader, in some way, left his mark. But no one has governed for a long time – or forcibly – like Benjamin Netanyahu. Now, more than ever, the question is not just a kind of inheritance that he wants to leave, but what is the legacy that it already creates.

In 2016, I Argue The Arab world has been crowned with the effectiveness of Netanyahu, “King of the Middle East” – a title that reflects its success in the situation of Israel as a regional power without making any concessions to the Palestinians. Today, I think he sees an opportunity not only to unify this title, but to constantly reshape Israel’s regional position – through strength, impunity, and a strategy inherent in prejudices.

Since his first term, Netanyahu insisted that Israel’s security should overcome all other considerations. In his view of the world, a Palestinian state does not contradict the security of Israel; It is an existential threat. Even if this country that must be created, Netanyahu explained that Israel must keep what it calls “the sovereignty of security” over all historical Palestine.

This was not just a speech. Each major decision has formed, and nothing more than the current war on Gaza. The assault settled the entire neighborhoods, killing tens of thousands of Palestinians, explaining most millions of people, and creating an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe.

Israel is accused by human rights groups and United Nations agencies of war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide. Accusing genocide, with the support of multiple countries in the International Court of Justice. The International Criminal Court has also issued arrest orders in favor of Netanyahu and former Defense Secretary, Yov Galet, due to the alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the use of hunger as a war weapon.

However, Netanyahu pressures, on the pretext that Gaza should not be once again pose a threat to Israel, and that destruction is necessary to secure the future of the country.

This logic does not stop in Gaza. He used arguments similar to justifying Israel’s attacks on Lebanon, including targeting strikes on Hezbollah figures and trying to assassinate the group’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah.

Using the same logical basis, Israel also launched strikes in Yemen and made it clear that it would work in Iraq whenever and wherever it is necessary.

The security argument has been used similarly to justify the continuous occupation of the Syrian lands and is currently called to give legitimacy to the ongoing attacks on Iran, apparently to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons and reducing its missile capabilities and drones.

In each case, the same narration is repeated: Israel cannot be safe unless its enemies are broken, deterred without challenge, and its dominance is undisputed. All opposition, disagreement, or resistance – whether it is military, political, or even symbolic – is thrown as a threat that must be eliminated.

Even Netanyahu’s diplomatic efforts follow this logic. Ibrahim, signed with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco, was welcomed during his excellent presidency, as a staff of peace, but they were primarily tools for regional alignment that irritates the Palestinians. For Netanyahu, normalization is not a path of peace – it is a way to support Israel’s position while avoiding a just solution to the occupation.

What is Netanyahu seeking the legacy of Netanyahu?

He wants to remember him as the Prime Minister who crushed all the resistance of the occupation, has always ended the idea of ​​the Palestinian state, and the engineering of Israel in the Middle East through intense power. In his vision, Israel controls the ground, dictates the rules, and answers anyone.

But history may remember it differently.

What Netanyahu calls security, most of the world is increasingly sees systematic violence. The global response to the war on Gaza – millions who are going in protest, international legal measures, increasing provinces, and diplomatic intervention – indicate that under its leadership, Israel does not gain legitimacy but loses it.

Even among its allies, Israel faces increased isolation. While the United States continues to provide a diplomatic cover, terms such as “apartheid”, “ethnic cleansing” and “settler colonialism” are no longer confined to marginalized activity. They enter the prevailing political discourse and make public awareness, especially among young generations.

Many commentators argue that Netanyahu clinging to power just to avoid the prosecution for corruption or accountability for the failures of October 7, 2023, on Israel. But I believe that this analysis is absent from a deeper truth: that he sees this moment – this war, this absence accountable – as a historical window of opportunities. On his mind, this is an old work.

The tragedy is that in following this legacy, it may achieve the opposite of what he intends. Israel is not stronger, but it is more isolated. It is not a safe homeland, but a country that increases it as a violation of international standards. It is not a legacy of strength, but it is from moral and political collapse.

Netanyahu will remember. Today, while Gaza Burns and Iran face the strike after the strike, there is no longer any doubt. The only question is whether his legacy will be one of the national security, or who leaves Israel alone, more condemned, and more dangerous than ever.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the editorial island.