Strategic Failure and its Repercussions on the Future of Governance in Israel

The escalating anger within Israeli society towards Benjamin Netanyahu can be seen as a direct result of the accumulation of failures suffered by the project he has led for years under the slogan of "decisiveness" and "restoring deterrence." After the war on Iran, which did not achieve its declared goals, and after the confrontation with Hezbollah, which ended without eliminating its capabilities or imposing a new political reality in Lebanon, and then after the long war on Gaza, which failed to eliminate the resistance, free prisoners by force, or impose the mass displacement that was seen as one of the undeclared goals of the war, Netanyahu found himself facing a public that feels the enormous sacrifices made have not translated into a clear victory.

However, this anger should not be interpreted as a moral shift or a review of aggressive policies. A large part of the criticism directed at Netanyahu within the Israeli street does not stem from a rejection of wars or an objection to the massacres committed against Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iranians, but rather from a belief that these wars were not sufficient to achieve complete victory. Therefore, many of his opponents do not demand an end to the wars as much as they demand a leadership more capable of managing them and achieving harsher and more decisive results.

In a sensitive election year, this frustration could turn into political punishment that threatens Netanyahu's future and leads to his downfall from the scene he has dominated for decades. But the paradox is that his potential downfall does not necessarily mean the rise of a peace or moderation current; rather, it may open the door to more extremist forces seeking to restore what they consider "Israel's prestige" through further escalation and wars. The Israeli society, which has rapidly shifted towards the national and religious right in recent decades, still harbors widespread vengeful and fascist tendencies fueled by the doctrine of power and justifying the use of excessive violence against civilians.

Hence, the real crisis does not lie in Netanyahu alone, but in the political and intellectual environment that produced him and kept him in power all these years. The man may leave under the pressure of failure, but the mindset that sees war as a permanent solution and force as the only means to impose will is still deeply rooted in the structure of society and politics in Israel. Therefore, the post-Netanyahu era may be more dangerous than Netanyahu himself, if the alternative comes with a greater desire for revenge and a greater willingness to ignite the region in search of a victory that previous wars failed to achieve.

It does not seem that the question being asked today in Israel is why these wars failed, but rather why they were not more brutal. While illusions of victory fall one after another, large segments of society are not moving towards self-reflection, but rather towards searching for a new leader who promises them more blood and greater fires. Therefore, Netanyahu's crisis is not the crisis of a man who lost his political gamble, but the crisis of an entire project that collided with the limits of power after long believing it capable of breaking the will of peoples and redrawing maps. And if Netanyahu has become a symbol of failure in the eyes of many Israelis, what truly worries the region is that the alternative they await may not be less extreme, but more thirsty for revenge and more willing to push the region towards new rounds of destruction, in a society that has learned nothing from wars except the desire to fight another war.

When wars fail to achieve their goals, living nations review their options. But when defeat turns into an impetus to demand more violence, that is an indicator of a crisis deeper than a crisis of leadership or government. In Israel today, Netanyahu's luster is fading, but the idea that brought him to power is still alive; an idea that believes power creates right and that much blood paves the way to the future. Therefore, Netanyahu may leave the scene, but the most dangerous question will remain: What happens when a society punishes failure not because it ignited wars, but because it did not achieve enough destruction and more blood from them?