Netanyahu’s Israel in the World’s Eyes

Dr Divya Malhotra

Across Europe, the United States, and even parts of Asia, Jewish communities and Israeli citizens are facing a wave of renewed hostility, not because of their religion, but because of Israeli government’s devastating actions in Gaza. What began as a war of self-defense following the October 2023 Hamas attacks has transformed into a prolonged humanitarian catastrophe. With over 50,000 Palestinians killed, Gaza is not just a battlefield, it is a humanitarian graveyard. As an Indian scholar, I observe with deep unease how Israel’s image, once rooted in resilience and survival, is now increasingly associated with moral decline. And at the heart of this shift is not just war, but the man directing it: Benjamin Netanyahu.

Israel’s military response was initially understood as retaliation against an unprecedented act of terror. But nearly two years later, it is difficult to decipher the objectives. Hamas cannot be bombed out of existence, and Palestinians, as a people, cannot be erased. If Hitler, with his genocidal machinery, failed to annihilate the Jews, how can Netanyahu expect to eliminate a people or an ideology with force alone? Wars have ethics. Occupation has limits. And leadership, above all, demands responsibility.

What Netanyahu is doing now is not merely retaliatory—it’s strategic self-preservation. It is a war prolonged, not solely against Hamas, but against political dissent, democratic institutions, and increasingly, against the very soul of Israel. Even among partner countries like India—long friendly to Tel Aviv—concerns about Gaza’s devastation are making it harder to maintain stable, open ties. Realist foreign policy may prioritize interests, but no nation can long ignore the moral stain of collective punishment.

Israel was beginning to emerge from a prolonged era of covert diplomacy, carving out a new regional foothold through the Abraham Accords and enjoying an unprecedented wave of Arab diplomatic engagement. But Netanyahu’s persistence in prosecuting a war with diminishing returns has jeopardized that progress. Many of Israel’s allies are starting to speak up against Bibi, and are getting increasingly uncomfortable in being publicly associated with his government.

Power as an End, not a Means: Netanyahu could have left behind a legacy of economic prowess and geopolitical pragmatism. Instead, it is now marked by democratic backsliding and institutional sabotage. His judicial overhaul effort aimed at neutering Israel’s Supreme Court ignited one of the largest civil resistance movements in the country’s history. Reservists refused duty, former Mossad and Shin Bet chiefs condemned the plan, and economists warned of irreversible investor flight. Netanyahu dismissed them all, invoking “the will of the people” while undermining the very frameworks that make democracy resilient.

Like Viktor Orbán in Hungary or Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, Netanyahu has mastered the art of cloaking authoritarian instincts in the rhetoric of patriotism. But history tells us that strongmen rarely exit gracefully. Mussolini, too, believed Italy’s future rested solely in his hands; he left behind a legacy of ruin. Bibi’s trajectory is alarmingly familiar.

When Leaders Become Liabilities: For a man who built his brand on security, the October 2023 attacks exposed staggering failure. Years of undermining the Palestinian Authority, fixating on Iran, and ignoring brewing tensions in Gaza created a blind spot that Hamas exploited with precision. In most democracies, such a collapse would lead to resignation or serious political reckoning. Netanyahu chose deflection and denial.

What followed was not just war, but the tightening of his political grip—vilifying opponents, rallying far-right allies, and portraying himself as indispensable. He brought fringe figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich into mainstream power, sacrificing societal cohesion for coalition arithmetic. Israeli democracy, long admired for its vitality even amid war, now teeters as Netanyahu aligns with messianic ultranationalists who reject pluralism and inflame racial tensions. And while Israel burns internally, the consequences are global. Jews around the world are being judged for the decisions of a government many did not elect and even more do not endorse. The reputational damage Netanyahu has inflicted on Jewish communities globally is immeasurable.

Political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt warned in How Democracies Die that it is often elected leaders, not generals, who destroy democracies by gradually dismantling institutions and norms to advance their own political agendas. Netanyahu has followed this script faithfully: inciting against judges, delegitimizing Israel’s Arab citizens, tolerating/promoting violence from settlers, and branding dissenters as traitors. Israel once prided itself on institutional strength amid constant external threat. But Netanyahu’s reign has hollowed out that pride. His obsession with avoiding prosecution has taken precedence over national interests, and his consolidation of power resembles more an autocrat than a statesman.

A Nation Larger Than One Man: To his credit, Netanyahu does have tangible accomplishments. He globalized Israel’s economy, opened diplomatic doors, and projected strength on the world stage. But a true leader knows when to step aside. Instead, Netanyahu clings to office like a man trapped by his own contradictions—too powerful to be challenged, too compromised to walk away.

Israel is more than Netanyahu. Its people, its institutions, and its moral legacy deserve better. Increasingly, even its allies are making the distinction between the Israeli state and the man leading it. The hope for a post-Netanyahu Israel is not just political, it is moral. For the sake of both Israelis and Palestinians, and for the credibility of Jews around the world, that hope must be realised soon.