By Ketty L.
The question of whether getting rid of Benjamin Netanyahu is enough to truly change Israel cuts right into the heart of the country’s current crisis. For years, both international diplomats and critics inside Israel held up Netanyahu as the main obstacle standing in the way of stability and a real peace process. He’s been in power a long time, defining his era with policies like expanding settlements in the West Bank, sidelining the Palestinian Authority, and choosing military tactics over serious diplomacy. It’s made him the face of the conflict’s deadlock.
But, honestly, boiling Israel’s challenges down to one leader misses the bigger picture. The country’s political system is just too fractured, too stuck in its positions, and too marked by a sense of ongoing threat for mere leadership change to flip the script. The real question is, can Israeli society and its political class really change from within, or will they just prop up a new prime minister who keeps following the same playbook?
Boiling Israel’s political challenges down to a single leader overlooks deep-seated institutional frameworks that sustain the conflict regardless of who holds power.
Right now, polls for the upcoming parliamentary elections show a political scene stuck in gridlock, not on the verge of transformation. The opposition has a slight edge over Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition, but neither side looks likely to hit the 61-seat threshold needed for a stable government in the 120-seat Knesset. The opposition isn’t even a true coalition; it’s just a group of parties united by wanting to kick Netanyahu out, not by a clear alternative vision for the country.
And when you look at the main Jewish opposition leaders, like Naftali Bennett or Benny Gantz, the differences with Netanyahu aren’t as big as people might hope. They agree on the essentials: no Palestinian state based on the old borders, keep control over the West Bank, and keep making deals with Arab neighbors without addressing the main demands of the Palestinians. Inside Israel’s mainstream politics, the fight isn’t about ending occupation or embracing a two-state solution, it’s mostly about which leader can manage the ongoing conflict more efficiently and at a lower cost to Israelis.
This overwhelming agreement comes from a hard shift to the right in Israeli public opinion, an even deeper one since October 7, 2023. After that day, which tore apart Israel’s sense of security, most Israelis have come to believe that any territorial compromise or peace efforts will get turned against them by enemies in the region.
Mainstream opposition leaders share core consensus positions with the right wing, framing political competition around managing conflict efficiently rather than resolving it.
Yuval Noah Harari, the sociologist, pointed out that what keeps the conflict going isn’t really land or resources, but an attachment to moral absolutes, each side clings to its own version of history and refuses to see the other’s rights. After October 7, these attitudes have only solidified. In today’s Israel, people increasingly see force not just as a temporary measure, but as the only way to guarantee survival in the long run.
Cultural voices in Israel have spoken up about this collective deadlock. Writer David Grossman said the country is living through a nightmare, paying dearly, both physically and morally, for years of leadership that sold the illusion of managing the conflict forever, without having to resolve it. Grossman doesn’t sound hopeful; he thinks the trauma inside Israel and the ongoing destruction have trapped the country in cycles of fear and aggression that regular politics just can’t fix.
What makes this paralysis deeper is that Israel’s institutional policies against peace run much farther than Netanyahu’s personal agenda. Over decades, both right-wing and center-left governments built an institutional framework designed to make a Palestinian state impossible. A network of state-subsidized settlements, outposts, and bypass roads has systematically severed Palestinian continuity across the West Bank. The International Court of Justice explicitly declared Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful, identifying policies of systematic annexation and segregation that transcend any single administration. The state maintains two completely separate legal systems in the same territory: civil law protections for Israeli settlers and harsh military rule for Palestinians. This institutionalized inequality deprives millions of basic civil rights and political self-determination, regardless of who sits in the Prime Minister’s office. Furthermore, the widespread destruction of homes, forced evictions, and the systemic denial of building permits form an ongoing policy to minimize Palestinian presence while cementing state control over land.
Institutionalized inequality, dual legal systems, and systematic annexation reflect decades-old policies that transcend individual administrations.
Making real change is even tougher because of how coalitions work in the Knesset. Arab-majority parties, like Ra’am or Hadash-Ta’al, could often decide who gets to build a government. But the major Jewish opposition parties shy away from partnering with them, scared of backlash from right-wing voters. By ruling out these partnerships, the opposition pins itself to the same center-right politics, making it almost impossible to create any coalition that might try something genuinely new.
Looking at the bigger picture, restarting the peace process would take more than just tweaking old formulas. Gershon Baskin, a peace activist, argues that endless interim periods and security committees (like those in Oslo) are now discredited. Any new effort will only work if it offers a real, clear promise of a sovereign Palestinian state next to Israel.
And if Palestinians can form a united, reform-minded political force that’s publicly committed to nonviolence, democracy, and a two-state deal, that would shatter the old Israeli claim that “there is no partner for peace”. For Israel’s opposition leaders, it would be a real test: are they actually willing to negotiate honestly, or is a Palestinian state off the table no matter who’s asking?
At the end of the day, Netanyahu both shaped Israel’s politics and is a product of them. Kicking him out would be a big moment for the country, it could reset some institutional norms, cool down the rhetoric, maybe even lower political polarization. But just changing the person in charge won’t undo the larger systems, beliefs, and policies that shape how Israel deals with the Palestinians. Unless Israeli society is ready to question old certainties, face the reality of endless occupation, and accept that lasting security doesn’t come from force alone, not much changes after Netanyahu. The real turning point comes only when Israelis start to imagine a future beyond ongoing conflict.
About the Author
Ketty L. is a Columnist writing on politics, and international affairs.