Wartime leaders typically enjoy a boost of public support and a reprieve from other political or personal challenges. Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has enjoyed 90% approval even a year after his country was invaded by Russia. Though the George W. Bush administration ignored intelligence warnings of an al-Qaeda attack before Sept. 11, Bush’s approval skyrocketed to over 85% in the months after.
By contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has seen no such bump in public support since Hamas’ horrific attack on Oct. 7. Netanyahu’s government was already in crisis well before the attacks, barely holding onto power in the Knesset. Subsequent events and revelations about the government’s security failings have given him no reprieve. With a new Israeli Defense Force ground offensive into southern Gaza starting right as his long-running trial on corruption charges resumes, Netanyahu’s poor public standing makes his next steps on all fronts even more unpredictable.
The closest comparison to Netanyahu’s situation is one he won’t like: the “Rose Garden strategy” of President Jimmy Carter.
In a country where the majority of voters rank national security as their No. 1 issue, not least because the national mandate for military service impacts every family, the largest attack on a Jewish community since the Holocaust had Netanyahu and his government being blamed by the majority of Israelis. According to the Jerusalem Post, the nation’s more conservative leaning paper, 4 in 5 Israelis wanted Netanyahu to resign and nearly 80% of his own coalition members blamed him for the security failures leading to the attack.
The hostages who have returned, and their families, have publicly quarreled with Netanyahu, demanding in meetings with his government that he focus on “bringing them home now, not in another month.” This is in addition to revelations that the government and military ignored intelligence that Hamas was preparing a devastating attack. Instead, Israelis and military leaders routinely express anger that Netanyahu spent military resources defending right-wing settlers moving into Palestinian West Bank, when he should have been shoring up the border with Gaza. “A successful Hamas infiltration of Israel from Gaza was the exact scenario for which Israel was supposed to be prepared — not some unpredictable event,” explained Uriel Heilman of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
The closest comparison to Netanyahu’s situation is one he won’t like: the “Rose Garden strategy” of President Jimmy Carter, who infamously hunkered down in his office and was rarely out in public during the Iran Hostage Crisis. You could not find an American and an Israeli leader further apart in their views about a Palestinian state: Carter built a post-government life as a humanitarian pushing for a two-state solution, while Netanyahu consistently rejects even the discussion of Palestinians being in charge of their own state security. But like Carter, Netanyahu is struggling to justify his foreign policy approach while dozens of their citizens are no closer to coming home.
And this week saw the resumption of his corruption trial, after a two-month suspension due to Hamas’ attacks. The three-year-old trial, in which he faces multiple counts of bribery and extortion, has gone forward only after Netanyahu’s efforts to disrupt the Supreme Court and undermine rule of law. Those moves sparked widespread protests against his government well before Hamas’ assault; such rallies have only become more consistent, with the added dimension of a hostage crisis that has no end in sight. With no wind at his back, Netanyahu faces a trifecta of institutions against him: political opposition that includes many of his own military leaders, a judiciary newly emboldened to provide accountability, and a domestic public focused on the protection of their families above all.
Netanyahu has proven himself willing to do what it takes to politically survive and focus on his own objectives.
A cat cornered is desperate and will split and claw its way out of danger. Netanyahu, who weathered four Israeli elections in the last five years as coalitions came together and fell apart, is incentivized to use the fog of war to complete the traditional four-year term; even prior to the attack, his Likud party suggested holding off on elections for another year. Where Netanyahu once rejected the Israeli government’s control of Gaza, just one day after the trial resumed, he declared Israel would militarily occupy Gaza after the war’s end.
Netanyahu has proven himself willing to do what it takes to politically survive and focus on his own objectives. With the southern Gaza offensive and trial underway at the same time, Netanyahu will only be more desperate to pursue his own agenda, making the calm and rational thinking required to pursue a diplomatic solution even more elusive.