Political Analysis: Netanyahu and Dancing in a Minefield

Reading Time: 6 minutes

By: Prof. Dr. Mohsen Mohammad Saleh.

Netanyahu is widely characterized as possessing an exceptional capacity for political survival, enabling him to remain at the forefront of Israeli politics for extended periods. Such endurance presupposes a high degree of pragmatism, as well as a sustained ability to position and reposition himself in ways that secure his continued dominance. This has often required forging alliances with former adversaries or with actors whose ideological orientations sharply diverge from his own. It has also involved obstructing or postponing political processes and obligations, confronting popular pressures when his position is under threat, and demonstrating a pronounced aptitude for crisis management and tactical maneuvering. Equally significant is his capacity to exploit political and societal divisions, not with the intention of resolving them, but rather of instrumentalizing them as assets in a broader strategy of survival and leadership. To this end, he has not hesitated to rely on an array of practices that include disinformation, deception, and political and financial corruption, deployed as auxiliary tools in sustaining his rule. These characteristics largely account for his sustained dominance over the Israeli political landscape since 2009, in addition to his earlier term as prime minister between 1996 and 1999. As a result, he has become the longest-serving leader in Israel since its establishment in 1948, surpassing even the state’s founding figure, David Ben-Gurion.

However, in 2026 Netanyahu appears to be navigating an exceptionally dense political minefield, one from which survival may prove far more difficult than before, regardless of the dexterity of his political “dance”!! The central question, therefore, is whether this year will mark his political demise, or whether he will once again manage, albeit with considerable strain, to endure, continuing his rule through tactical improvisation, calculated maneuvering, and a high degree of political opportunism.

Managing the Gaza File:

One of the critical “minefields” confronting Netanyahu lies in his management of the Gaza Strip (GS) file. Of the five objectives he declared during his war on GS over the past two years, none has been realized, most notably the goal of crushing the resistance. At present, he is constrained by Religious Zionism and the far right, which oppose the implementation of the second phase of Trump’s plan and reject any withdrawal from the “yellow line” in GS unless the resistance is fully disarmed. Nevertheless, Netanyahu is acutely aware that no state is willing to deploy its own troops to achieve what he himself failed to accomplish over two years, despite the backing of the strongest power in the world, namely the US. At the same time, he recognizes that persisting in imposing his dictates would keep him mired in the GS quagmire, leading to the paralysis and eventual derailment of Trump’s plan, undermining Trump’s ability to advance the peace process and the “Abraham Accords,” and perpetuating the entrenched image of the Israeli occupation as brutal and unrestrained. Consequently, Netanyahu must “play” his hand in a manner that neither alienates his extremist base nor places him in direct confrontation with Trump. This is likely to take the form of tactical withdrawals and partial easing of the siege, while retaining key instruments of pressure and coercion to be deployed whenever he deems it necessary.

Knesset Elections:

The second critical juncture relates to the anticipated Knesset elections expected later this year. Israeli opinion polls conducted over the past two years have consistently suggested a prospective victory for the opposition alliance over the bloc led by Netanyahu. The most recent survey projects the opposition securing 58 seats, compared to 52 seats for Netanyahu’s coalition, while Arab parties are expected to obtain 10 seats. Furthermore, a slim majority of the Israeli public (52%) reportedly does not wish to see Netanyahu stand as a candidate in the forthcoming elections. In parallel, a survey conducted by the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), published on 25/12/2025, reveals a pronounced erosion of public confidence. According to the findings, 68% of the Israeli public express low confidence in Netanyahu, including 49% who report a complete lack of confidence. Moreover, 76% of respondents indicated low confidence in his government as a whole.

Netanyahu is increasingly haunted by the specter or the “looming fear,” of political collapse, a scenario that could not only bring his political career to an end but also result in imprisonment should his trial continue and culminate in conviction.

He thus finds himself confronting difficult choices and limited prospects for remaining at the center of the political arena. On the one hand, the continuation of his alliance with Religious Zionism significantly undermines his electoral prospects, particularly given the likelihood that Smotrich’s party may fail to pass the electoral threshold required to enter the Knesset. On the other hand, identifying an alternative political partner has become equally challenging, as most of his opponents in the opposition camp are primarily invested in his personal political removal. Although the Israeli party system has often resembled a “marketplace” characterized by deal-making and transactional politics, Netanyahu now faces growing difficulty in securing viable partners or credible alternatives.

The Identity of the “State” and Judicial Stakes:

A third critical factor of destabilization concerns the determination of the “state’s” identity and the attendant judicial and legislative implications, as well as the enduring religious–secular divide within Israeli society. This conflict, which had already reached acute intensity prior to Operation al-Aqsa Flood, has now resurfaced with renewed significance. In this context, Netanyahu has found it strategically advantageous to leverage his alliance with Religious Zionist factions to advance a series of reforms that would substantially enhance the powers of the legislative and executive branches at the judiciary’s expense. Such measures could, in turn, afford him a means of circumventing prosecution and imprisonment, thereby securing a more favorable position in anticipation of forthcoming elections.

Presidential Pardon:

Closely intertwined with the preceding analysis is Netanyahu’s anxious pursuit of a “presidential pardon,” a possibility that remains distant despite US President Trump’s intervention with Israel’s head of state on his behalf. According to a report by Haaretz (7/1/2026), tensions have surfaced between Israel’s attorney general and Netanyahu. The attorney general maintains that Netanyahu’s request for a presidential “pardon in his criminal trial does not meet the legal requirements.” Her legal opinion is expected to be “forwarded to the Justice Ministry’s Pardons Department, which is tasked with submitting its position on the request to President Isaac Herzog.”

Although the idea is deeply unpalatable to Netanyahu, he may be compelled to consider it if his political maneuvering space becomes severely constrained, that is, negotiating a deal that would end his political career in exchange for having the charges against him dropped. Nonetheless, he will first, and to the greatest extent possible, seek to preserve his political career while securing the dismissal of the charges.

Between Deterrence and Hegemony, and Between Settlement and Normalization

From a fifth analytical perspective, Netanyahu grapples with the tension between two significant yet fundamentally conflicting agendas. The first centers on Israel’s overarching desire to reassert a robust image of deterrence, advancing a policy of uncompromising force and employing coercive instruments to guarantee “security.” This agenda encompasses the continuation of annexation, Judaization, destruction and displacement policies within Palestinian territories, coupled with an assertive regional posture, particularly toward Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iran. In parallel, it reflects an effort to establish regional hegemony grounded in Israeli imperatives and security standards, revealing a markedly expansionist and supremacist mindset.

The second issue concerns Israel’s urgent need to “repair” its international image and regain a measure of legitimacy both regionally and globally, after becoming widely criticized and isolated on the world stage. Achieving this requires making strategic concessions and showing greater flexibility on key issues, including the post-war situation in GS, the powers of the PA, the status of Jerusalem and the West Bank (WB), and moderating its aggressive behavior in the region.

While Religious Zionists and many Likud members push to maintain momentum on the first issue, several Israeli opposition forces, together with the US and European partners, prioritize “improving” Israel’s image, easing tensions, and adopting a more flexible approach. Their aim is to advance normalization efforts, including “Abraham Accords,” and implement the second phase of Trump’s plan.

Despite the “dire” state of the Arab countries, and notwithstanding that Trump and his team have pursued populist colonialist policies indifferent to international law and humanitarian values, shaped further by their evangelical Zionist background, the assumption that the region can be subdued, humiliated, and the Palestine issue permanently closed reflects a fundamental misjudgment. Since the Arab Spring, the region continues to experience profound instability, with the potential for powerful waves of change to erupt. These dynamics are rooted in popular environments where overwhelming majorities oppose the Zionist project and stand firmly with Palestinian rights. Attempts at coercion or pressure in such contexts are likely to exacerbate resentment, anger and determination to confront challenges, producing outcomes contrary to those intended, consequences that Israel, as the occupying power, would ultimately bear.

Thus, although Netanyahu demonstrates considerable skill in crisis management, the risk persists that any of these “previously laid mines” could detonate against him, thereby jeopardizing his carefully calculated strategies for “political survival.”

Moreover, his hands, stained with the blood of innocents, and his exclusionary, expansionist, and overtly racist ideology constitute a lasting testament to one of the most brutal phases endured under Israel’s rule during his tenure.