Israel has not talked about the “war” in Gaza for weeks. After all, there is a ceasefire, right? The fact that more than 350 Palestinians, including more than 130 children, were killed during this so-called “ceasefire” period is nowhere to be found, as is the fact that Israel killed them. Palestinians die because that is their purpose. There’s nothing to discuss.
But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s request for amnesty is yet another waxball. That’s all everyone in Israel is talking about, on all sides of the political divide. Nothing reflects the Netanyahu era more than this (my daughter, who is 22 years old, has had little experience of Israel without Netanyahu). Those furious with Netanyahu point out that this is not even a request for amnesty. Israel’s president, now Isaac Herzog, former leader of Netanyahu’s opposition, has the legal power to pardon “serious criminals.” However, felons are people who have been convicted by a court of law for breaking the law. Prime Minister Netanyahu is still on trial.
Only once in Israel’s history has a pardon been granted before a conviction (actually before a trial). This right was given to Shin Bet officials who attacked a bus hijacked by Palestinians in 1984 and bludgeoned two hijackers to death. The internal investigation, which became known as the Bus 300 scandal, was rigged by the Shin Bet leadership. Two years later, an unprecedented agreement was reached not only to pardon Shin Bet members accused but not convicted of extrajudicial killings, but also to force Shin Bet leaders who manipulated the investigation into the case to resign without being prosecuted. Special security circumstances were cited. Prime Minister Netanyahu is essentially calling for a similar situation to be conjured.
Again, he’s not just asking for forgiveness. He is calling on the president (in a largely ceremonial role) to halt the trial in the interest of “national unity” and the “amazing developments” expected (by Prime Minister Netanyahu) in the Middle East. As far as his ardent supporters are concerned, the trial should never have begun. They are claiming both immunity from prosecution and a miscarriage of justice, citing the “weakness” of the charges he faces. Now, in the midst of an endless war (instigated and orchestrated by Prime Minister Netanyahu), his supporters argue that his presence is needed full-time at the helm. They describe Netanyahu’s trial as a personal vendetta by the Israeli judicial system, a result of “significant” legal and judicial reforms that Netanyahu began implementing long before October 7, 2023. Their supporters in Congress and the media believe that the uproar at Prime Minister Netanyahu’s request is a perfect illustration of Israel’s “deep state” hatred of Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel in general. They have been willing to comply with Mr. Netanyahu’s requests, from Mr. Herzog warning Environmental Protection Minister Yidit Shirman that Donald Trump would be “forced to intervene” with Israel’s judiciary if Mr. Herzog did not stop the trial, to Mr. Netanyahu’s personal lawyer Amit Haddad insisting that the trial must be stopped in order for Mr. Netanyahu to “get on with the business of healing the country” and guide Israel through the current crisis.
There are always “compromisers” between the two camps. At every juncture, they argue, the truth can only be found in the middle. These people, the notorious Israeli centrists, are seeking plea deals or other big deals. In exchange for avoiding a conviction, the majority want a political deal that would see Prime Minister Netanyahu leave politics. Others are less interested in solutions than in the overall framework of the problem, calling for a “moderate” approach that refrains from accusing Netanyahu of corruption and instead focuses on his responsibility for the events of October 7, 2023, particularly the dysfunction of the Israeli military and other government authorities. In all cases, the desired story is one of unity, and unity can only be achieved if both “sides” agree to end up with less than 100 percent of what they originally wanted.
What these seemingly contrasting approaches have in common is that they are all focused entirely on Netanyahu. Take centrists, for example. Prime Minister Netanyahu released an unprecedented letter that essentially called for an end to institutional norms and state laws that favor him. Its justifications were at best abstract, such as “profits,” “tremendous development,” and national unity, and at worst cynical manipulation. One might expect that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s request would be rejected outright by his “moderate” followers. Nevertheless, the moment Prime Minister Netanyahu released the letter, these centrists immediately accepted it as legitimate and tried to find a compromise regarding it.
The same goes for liberals. Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner of the United States addressed a crowd of 100,000 in the largest demonstration held before the ceasefire took effect. These protesters see themselves as fierce opponents of Prime Minister Netanyahu, and have crystallized their differences with him into a single issue: Netanyahu’s failure (and lack of willingness) to return the hostages. Kushner’s mention of Netanyahu drew boos from the crowd. For three days—much longer than, say, the period of Israeli attention given to documented Palestinian executions—Israeli media became obsessed with the booing issue. Were they appropriate? Was it inappropriate because he was the prime minister? Have they proven that the protests against him are based solely on hatred for him (and by proxy his supporters)? Was Netanyahu the epitome of evil that had to be booed and civility ignored? At that time, Palestinians were dying by the dozens or even hundreds. Israel’s infrastructure continued to be destroyed, as did its economy. Netanyahu, the response to Netanyahu, the position on Netanyahu, these were all things that liberal Israelis wanted to discuss.
For Prime Minister Netanyahu’s supporters, there is no one but him. He is “their” man, the one who represents them against the elites who think the country rightfully belongs to them. He alone fought the enemies of Israel with his boldness and cunning and brought them to their knees. He is a man who broke the paradigm of exposing Israel to the mercy of the world. Israel is now doing what it wants, and its wishes should only be articulated by Israel. He is a unique person and no rules or laws should be applied to him in order to protect his historical mission and save the Jewish people. Even if he didn’t do all that, why would his overt supporters (thus reflecting the thoughts of his covert supporters) vote for anyone else? But in essence, they are little different from him. Jewish “opposition” leaders have never articulated a vision different from what Prime Minister Netanyahu has already achieved. They all support Israel’s right to “destroy” Hamas and attack other “enemies” at Israel’s complete discretion. They have all been barred from “coordination” meetings of Palestinian-Israeli parliamentarians and are talking about a “Zionist” government (pronounced “fully Jewish”) to replace Prime Minister Netanyahu. They may blame Prime Minister Netanyahu for Israel’s declining international standing, but no one accepts Israel’s responsibility for the destruction of Gaza, let alone the genocide. Together, the two opposition leaders served as prime minister for less than 18 months. Prime Minister Netanyahu has been prime minister for nearly 20 years. Sure, he’s a little dumb and maybe a little crazy. He still knows his business better than any of his self-proclaimed successors.
The conclusion is simple. Mr. Netanyahu is not only Israel’s most effective politician; He is Israel’s only politician. If elections are held in the coming months and he is not indicted, he is expected to emerge as leader of the largest party and as prime minister. Originally, “There is no one like God” refers to God. For Israelis of all political persuasions, Netanyahu is the only choice.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.
