Removing Netanyahu must not be rivals’ sole aim

Israel’s political landscape is once again entering a period of profound uncertainty, as the emerging rapprochement between Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid signals one of the most serious challenges yet to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s long-standing dominance. This alliance, bridging the nationalist right and the political center, reflects not ideological harmony but political necessity — a calculated response to growing public exhaustion with Netanyahu’s leadership after years of war, internal division and strategic stagnation.

For decades, Netanyahu successfully cultivated an image of himself as Israel’s ultimate security guardian, the indispensable leader capable of defending the state against mounting regional threats. His political survival depended heavily on this narrative. He portrayed military escalation, aggressive deterrence and hard-line nationalism as essential tools for preserving Israeli security. Today, however, that carefully constructed image is collapsing under the weight of reality.

Despite overseeing devastating military operations in Gaza, repeated confrontations with Lebanon and broader regional tensions involving Iran and its allies, Netanyahu has failed to deliver the decisive victories he has consistently promised Israeli voters. Instead, Israel finds itself trapped in multiple prolonged conflicts, facing growing military exhaustion, rising economic pressure and increasing diplomatic isolation.

Rather than building lasting security, Netanyahu’s policies have entrenched a dangerous cycle of perpetual confrontation. Gaza remains devastated but unresolved. The Lebanese front continues to simmer. Regional hostility persists. Far from eliminating threats, Netanyahu’s strategy has often appeared to manage crises for political survival rather than resolve them through sustainable long-term planning.

Israelis are questioning whether Netanyahu’s leadership model — built on fear, division and military force — has reached its limits

Hani Hazaimeh

This reality has left many Israelis questioning whether Netanyahu’s leadership model — built on fear, division and military force — has reached its limits. They will soon get to have their say, as elections are due to be held by Oct. 27.

The Bennett-Lapid alliance emerges directly from this political fatigue. Although Bennett represents a more nationalist and right-wing constituency, while Lapid appeals to centrist and secular voters, both figures recognize that Netanyahu’s prolonged rule has become increasingly synonymous with national paralysis. Their cooperation is less about shared political philosophy and more about dismantling Netanyahu’s monopoly over Israeli governance.

This alone is politically significant. Netanyahu’s strength has long been built on fragmenting his opponents and positioning himself as the only viable leader amid chaos. A unified opposition, even among unlikely partners, threatens this formula.

However, while this alliance may pose a credible electoral threat, it suffers from a fundamental weakness: it appears primarily designed to remove Netanyahu rather than redefine Israel’s future.

There is little evidence that Bennett and Lapid possess a transformative political vision capable of addressing Israel’s deep structural crises. Their coalition may be tactically effective, but strategy requires more than replacing one leader with another.

Israel’s core challenges remain immense: the unresolved Palestinian issue, the rise of religious nationalism, increasing societal polarization, judicial and constitutional instability, and the normalization of military-first policies. On these existential matters, the Bennett-Lapid partnership has yet to present a coherent alternative.

There is no substantial peace initiative. No serious plan to confront the growing power of extremist political factions. No clear blueprint for repairing Israel’s damaged international standing or redefining its regional relationships beyond military calculations.

This is why Netanyahu’s potential downfall, while symbolically significant, may not necessarily produce meaningful transformation.

The deeper problem facing Israel is not merely Netanyahu as an individual, but the broader political system that enabled and sustained his model of governance. Over the years, Israeli politics has increasingly shifted toward populism, ethnonationalism and the prioritization of force over diplomacy. Netanyahu may have perfected this model, but he did not create it alone.

Removing him without confronting these entrenched systemic dynamics risks little more than a cosmetic transition.

Indeed, Israel could simply exchange one set of political actors for another, while preserving the same underlying dysfunction: perpetual security crises, expanding settlements, unresolved occupation and escalating social fragmentation.

For international observers, this moment should not be mistaken for automatic democratic renewal. Leadership change is not synonymous with structural reform.

There is little evidence that Bennett and Lapid have a vision capable of addressing Israel’s deep structural crises

Hani Hazaimeh

The real question is whether Israel’s opposition can evolve beyond anti-Netanyahu sentiment and articulate a new national direction — one that addresses both domestic democratic erosion and the broader regional instability that decades of military dominance have failed to resolve.

Without such a vision, Israel may simply enter a post-Netanyahu era that reproduces many of the same failures under different leadership.

This possibility carries serious consequences not only for Israelis but for the wider Middle East. Israel’s internal political trajectory profoundly shapes regional security, Palestinian realities and broader geopolitical stability. A fragile alliance focused solely on ousting Netanyahu without redefining policy risks perpetuating instability rather than alleviating it.

Ultimately, Netanyahu’s weakening political position may mark the closing of one chapter in Israeli politics, but it does not guarantee the beginning of a better one.

If Bennett and Lapid fail to move beyond tactical maneuvering and confront the foundational crises consuming Israeli society, then Netanyahu’s fall may represent less of a political revolution and more of a reshuffling of power within the same troubled system.

Israelis may witness new faces at the top but, without fundamental changes in governance, ideology and conflict management, the country could remain trapped in the very cycle that brought it to this moment.

In that case, Netanyahu’s departure would not signal true national renewal — it would merely confirm that Israel has changed its leadership while preserving its crisis.

And perhaps that is the greatest danger of all: not that Netanyahu stays but that Israel removes him without truly changing course.

• Hani Hazaimeh is a senior editor based in Amman. X: @hanihazaimeh