Living by the sword

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu stands accused of waging war in his personal rather than Israel’s national interest. Mr. Netanyahu’s critics argue that had the prime minister focussed on Israel’s national interest rather than his personal concerns, Israel would have long sought to end hostilities in Gaza and Lebanon and, perhaps, lobbied US President Donald Trump less hard for military action against Iran. Focusing on Israel’s national interests would also have spared Israel the reputational, diplomatic, and economic damage it has suffered that will take years to repair and require significant political and policy changes. Analysts define Mr. Netanyahu’s personal interests as wanting to escape conviction in a corruption trial, betting on war boosting his lagging chances in elections scheduled for October, and ensuring that his legacy is one of military victory and enhanced Israeli security rather than responsibility for failures that led to Hamas’s devastating October 7, 2023, attack on Israel and presiding over the worst reputational crisis in Israel’s history. Polls suggest that most Israelis distrust Mr. Netanyahu, even if they empathise with his security and military policies. To be fair, Mr. Netanyahu’s policies are as much informed by his personal interests as they are by his political and ideological beliefs. Even so, Mr. Netanyahu’s ability to prioritise his personal ambitions raises multiple questions that are not simply answered by the fact that Messrs. Trump, his predecessor, Joe Biden, and other Western leaders have given the prime minister a long leash. Some of these questions go to the heart of problems with democracy that are accentuated by the rise of a critical mass of illiberal and autocratic world leaders, who have hollowed out democratic institutions or reinforced existing autocratic structures. Others have more to do with Israel’s almost 60-year occupation of Palestinian and Arab lands, the country’s education system, including the prepping of youth for military service, refusal to acknowledge that nations and people have equal rights, and the ability to flout international law and moral and ethical norms in the name of national security.