genocide monitor

genocide monitor
Responsive Burger Navigation

Netanyahu Uncovered

Unveiling the Architect of Modern Zionism

Contents

Netanyahu – Chapter 1 Archive Dossier
Chapter 1:

Familial Background and Ideological Formation

Benjamin Netanyahu grew up in an ideologically influenced family. His father, the historian Benzion Netanyahu, was a staunch supporter of Ze'ev Jabotinsky's revisionist Zionism Wikipedia Wikipedia. Benzion served as Jabotinsky’s personal secretary in the United States and adopted his vision of a “Greater Israel” – a Jewish state that would extend beyond the British Mandate of Palestine to what is now Jordan. For the revisionists, any territorial cession was considered treason; instead, they propagated a policy of strength and an unrestricted Jewish claim to the entire land of Israel (Eretz Israel) behind a proverbial “iron wall” against the Arab population. TIME

Benzion’s worldview was marked by deep skepticism toward Arabs. He believed that Arabs “by essence” tended to seek conflict with Jews and that their goal was the destruction of Israel. TIME In a 2009 interview with Ma’ariv, Benzion even denied the existence of a distinct Palestinian people and insisted that “the two-states solution doesn’t exist” — Palestinians were “an invented people” whose sole purpose was fighting Jews. TIME He saw “no solution but force”: Israel must rule with a firm hand and military might, crushing any uprising immediately. TIME Even toward the Arab citizens of Israel, Benzion demanded a language of strength: “the language of force.” TIME This uncompromising, radical Zionist outlook of the father — emphasizing defensiveness, mistrust, and maximal territorial claims — profoundly shaped his son’s mentality.

Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly downplayed his father’s influence, dismissing such analyses as “psychobabble.” TIME Yet in his 2012 eulogy, he praised Benzion’s consistent warning to “identify danger in time,” “face reality head on,” and “draw the necessary conclusions.” Times of Israel Benzion himself hinted that his son shared his goals but concealed his methods: “Bibi might aim for the same goals as mine, but he keeps to himself the ways to achieve them. If he expressed them, he would expose his goals,” he said in 2009. TIME This suggests that Benjamin Netanyahu has internalized his father’s hardline ideals and acts with strategic caution to realize them in the long term — even while outwardly adopting more moderate positions.

Chapter 2:

Early Education and Transatlantic Network

Netanyahu’s biography is also marked by significant years in the United States. As early as the 1960s, his family moved temporarily to the U.S., where Benzion Netanyahu served as a university professor. Benjamin attended high school in Pennsylvania and later studied at MIT and Harvard University. In this time he anglicized his name to “Ben Nitay” to fit in more easily in America and developed nearly accent-free English. This American socialization not only provided him with perfect language skills but also opened doors to corridors of power in the U.S. From early on, Netanyahu forged connections with influential circles. In the 1970s, he worked briefly in the private sector in Boston, where he met the future politician Mitt Romney. Above all, however, he cultivated ties to U.S. politicians, think-tanks, and lobbying organizations that shared an Israeli perspective.

A key role was played by the Jonathan Institute, which the Netanyahu family founded in 1976 in memory of Benjamin’s fallen brother Yonatan. Under the aegis of this institute, Benjamin Netanyahu organized a groundbreaking international terrorism conference in Jerusalem in 1979. He brought together senior Israeli politicians (including Menachem Begin and Shimon Peres) as well as prominent American neoconservatives and security strategists. At that and later meetings (e.g., in Washington in 1984), Netanyahu and his father propagated a new, alarmist view of terrorism: they painted a picture of “irrational evil,” a global terror intent on destroying Western values. Benzion Netanyahu argued that in the fight against terrorism the West must abandon all previous restraints—set aside international law and multilateral diplomacy—and “use every necessary means to eliminate the threat.” This rhetoric found fertile ground in the U.S.: after the Vietnam trauma, it supplied the neoconservatives with an ideological justification for the renewed use of military strength and helped brand the Soviet Union as a sponsor of terror. Boston Review

Netanyahu skillfully used these platforms to build a transatlantic network. He interwove the Israeli security agenda with American discourse so that from then on Palestinian resistance was understood as part of a global terrorism threat. Netanyahu’s early alliance with U.S. think-tanks, intelligence veterans, and pro-Israel lobby groups such as AIPAC laid the foundation for a lifetime of influential advocates in Washington. From 1984 onward, he stepped into the spotlight as Israel’s U.N. ambassador in New York and quickly became a welcome guest in the American media, eloquently defending Israel’s position. Ted Koppel regularly interviewed the young Netanyahu on Nightline, where he scored with sharp rhetoric and charisma. His brilliant English and intellectual quick-wittedness made him appear a “gifted communicator” – a skilled mediator of Israeli interests who won over the American public. The Forward

In this phase, Netanyahu forged enduring alliances with powerful circles in the U.S. These included influential neoconservative think-tanks (such as figures around the American Enterprise Institute, where he later lectured) and the leadership of the pro-Israel lobby. He built personal relationships with U.S. Republicans that lasted into the 2000s – visible, for example, in his close relationship with President Donald Trump decades later. He also maintained an intensive exchange with U.S. intelligence agencies, especially on counterterrorism and Middle East security, although details of these contacts naturally remain hidden. What is unmistakable is that Netanyahu learned early on how to use the American political landscape to his advantage: he developed a deep understanding of how narratives are set in Washington and cultivated friendships with billionaires such as Sheldon Adelson (who later financed Israel HaYom, Israel’s largest free newspaper, in Netanyahu’s favor) and with evangelical Christians, who became Israel’s most loyal grassroots supporters in the U.S. Netanyahu himself repeatedly told evangelicals: “Israel has no better friends than the Christian Zionists in America.” CUFI Times of Israel

Chapter 3:

Zionist Ideology: Aggressive, Expansion-Oriented Course

Netanyahu’s Zionist self-understanding is deeply rooted in revisionist ideology, which manifests itself in an aggressive, expansion-oriented course. He sees himself as an uncompromising defender of the Jewish state, claiming historic Israel within the most complete borders possible. Already his father taught him that any territorial concession to Arabs represents an existential threat New YorkerTIME. This thinking is reflected in Netanyahu’s policies: while he occasionally spoke internationally of a two-state solution, he has in fact thwarted all initiatives toward the actual establishment of a Palestinian state. Critics point out that although he never completely denied the possibility of a Palestinian state, he always set conditions that were unacceptable to Palestinians – something even Benzion Netanyahu openly remarked: his son would deliberately formulate impossible conditions for a Palestinian state, “which they would never accept,” in order to actually prevent any real withdrawal TIME.

In fact, Netanyahu categorically rejected a Palestinian state at key moments. Shortly before the 2015 election, he stated unequivocally:

“There will be no Palestinian state as long as I am Prime Minister.”
He justified this by saying that any withdrawal or the creation of a state would mean “handing over territory to radical Islamic terrorists.” This statement marked an openly revisionist stance: instead of pursuing a two-state solution, Netanyahu advocated permanent control over the occupied territories. Accordingly, he massively promoted the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. During his terms in office, the number of settlers rose sharply – between 2009 and 2012 alone by about 50,000 people (+18%) Times of Israel. His government continuously approved thousands of new homes in settlements, even in remote parts of the West Bank. He openly announced that he would continue settlement construction even in “deep inside the territory” parts of the West Bank. This policy of “land grabbing” aligns with the revisionist goal of securing as much of Judea and Samaria (biblical terms for the West Bank) as possible for Israel and creating facts on the ground that make a return practically impossible. As one commentator noted, the growth of settlements has effectively erased the 1967 borders – a situation that matches the classic vision of Greater Israel.

Netanyahu’s security doctrine is shaped by an almost apocalyptic vigilance. He sees Israel as permanently surrounded by enemies who seek to destroy it – a narrative that comes directly from his father’s view of history (“in every generation, an enemy arises to destroy us” New Yorker). Accordingly, Netanyahu supports a doctrine of deterrence and retaliation that goes to the extreme. Some observers are reminded of Israel’s so-called “Samson Option” – the concept that in case of an existential threat to the state, one would, if necessary, resort to the ultimate means (including nuclear weapons), comparable to the biblical hero Samson, who died with his enemies in the collapse of the Philistine temple Wikipedia. While Netanyahu has never openly confirmed this scenario, he has repeatedly emphasized that Israel would inflict an “unimaginable” punishment on any aggressor if its existence were threatened. Israel’s nuclear deterrence – unofficial practice for decades – gained new relevance under Netanyahu in his fight against the Iranian nuclear program. His famous presentation of a cartoon bomb before the UN in 2012 symbolized the message that Israel would be ready to act alone to avert a threat. The Samson reflex – “If we go down, we take you with us” – resonates implicitly in Netanyahu’s rhetoric and underscores the uncompromising, security-maximizing Zionism he represents Wikipedia.

There is also a messianic-ideological component, especially through Netanyahu’s alliance with religious-Zionist forces (see chapter 5). Parts of his coalition see the modern state of Israel as the fulfillment of prophecy and seek an Israel within the borders of the Promised Land. Netanyahu himself grew up secular but has not completely closed himself off to this rhetoric. In interviews with Christian evangelicals, he spoke of the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy and emphasized the role that Israel plays in the divine plan TRT World. Internally, he tolerated or promoted partners who have visions of an “Erez Israel HaShlema” (complete Israel) and, for example, want to build the Third Temple in Jerusalem. In doing so, Netanyahu also served a current of messianically motivated politics that sees wars and conflicts as a path to redemption. In fact, after October 7, 2023, the extreme right in his environment fueled the idea that the war against Hamas could be a “divinely ordained campaign of conquest” to bring Greater Israel (from the Mediterranean to the Jordan) back under Jewish control The Guardian. This eschatological expectation, that an apocalyptic war could “cleanse” the land of non-Jews and usher in the messianic era, was reflected under Netanyahu’s government in 2023, as radical voices such as Orit Strock (Religious Zionism Party) euphorically referred to the wartime as a “time of miracles.” Netanyahu’s tolerance of such partners and rhetoric shows that his Zionism is not the founding, pragmatic Zionism of Ben-Gurion, but a revisionist, at times messianically charged nationalism that prioritizes expansion and strength over compromise and coexistence.

Chapter 4:

Strategies of Disinformation and Propaganda

To justify his policies – from hard security to occupation – and to fend off criticism, Netanyahu has relied on diverse communication strategies. Under the Hebrew term Hasbara (literally “explanation”), Israel has engaged in state-driven public relations for decades, which under Netanyahu became even more professional and global Jewish Voice for Labour. At its core, Hasbara is state propaganda aimed at shaping a narrative in which Israel always appears as a threatened victim and a moral authority, while Palestinian actors are discredited as aggressors or liars. Netanyahu’s governments recognized the importance of the “battle for public opinion” and invested millions in media campaigns, sometimes covertly via NGOs, social media influencers, and advocacy groups abroad. In 2021, for example, a budget of 100 million shekels (about $30 million) was allocated specifically to support influencers and media watch initiatives overseas to spread Israeli narratives – but without any overt link to the Israeli government. These international networks allow Israel’s perspective to be seemingly confirmed independently and opposing narratives to be presented as untrustworthy.

A central element of Netanyahu’s communication line is the delegitimization of the Palestinian side through terrorism frames. As early as the late 1970s, he propagated the equation of Palestinians with terrorists to discredit their cause Boston Review. According to the motto “Anyone who resists the occupation is part of a global terror against the free world”, Palestinians were collectively placed in the camp of evil. This narrative is still regularly employed by Netanyahu: in his portrayal, Israel is “fighting terror”, not a people with legitimate national rights. Thus, he responds to accusations of excessive violence by stating that the blame lies with radical groups like Hamas, who use their own civilians as “human shields” and thus bear responsibility for civilian casualties Jewish Voice for Labour. Whenever international criticism of civilian deaths in Gaza grows, Netanyahu typically counters with the argument that Hamas is committing “double war crimes” – terror attacks on Israelis and cowardly hiding behind their own population. This argumentative pattern justifies harsh military strikes, claiming the enemy forces Israel’s hand by acting in residential areas. Palestinian victims of violence are likewise portrayed as self-inflicted or even as staged. A formative example is the invention of the term “Pallywood”: after the 2000 killing of 12-year-old Muhammad al-Durrah in Gaza generated worldwide empathy, Israeli Hasbara spread the rumor that the scene was staged and the boy a “crisis actor”. Such conspiracy narratives (“they fake their victim pictures”) aim to cast doubt on any Palestinian depiction of suffering. Netanyahu did not invent these tactics personally, but during his time in office they were industrialized – especially on social media, where during the Gaza war of 2023, official sources claimed videos of dead children were fake or staged by Hamas.

Hasbara under Netanyahu often operates by sowing doubt and flipping the debate (whataboutism). Thus, criticism of Israeli military actions is relativized by referencing the cruelty of others. When accused of apartheid or human rights abuses, Israel under Netanyahu categorically denies everything and reverses the accusation: critics are labeled antisemites or linked to terrorists. One example is the reaction to the Amnesty International report (2022) which attested Israel to practicing apartheid against Palestinians. Even before publication, Netanyahu’s Foreign Ministry called the report “false, one-sided, and antisemitic”, and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid claimed Amnesty was “quoting lies from terrorist organizations” NPR. Israel did not attempt to refute these or similar reports (e.g. Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem) factually, but instead aimed to morally delegitimize the authors. This delegitimization framing is part of Netanyahu’s standard repertoire: the UN, the ICC or NGOs are portrayed as biased, hypocritical or anti-Jewish, so that—in the perception of many Israelis—every criticism is devalued from the outset Reuters. In this way, Netanyahu strikes a chord with many Israelis who believe that international criticism of the occupation is often rooted in antisemitism.

At the same time, Netanyahu actively reverses the perpetrator-victim narrative. He consistently stages Israel diplomatically as a small, besieged democracy desperately defending itself. In speeches at the UN or the US Congress, he has repeatedly painted the picture of Israel as a “beacon of freedom in a sea of Islamist darkness”, fighting for Western values. Narratives like “Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East” or “we protect Europe on the front lines against terror” are typical of Netanyahu’s style. In this way, criticism of occupation and violence is equated with an attack on Israel’s right to self-defense. Netanyahu does not shy away from instrumentalizing historical trauma: he warns critics against “putting Israel in the dock while it is fighting for its survival”—a phrase that implicitly references the betrayal of the world in the 1930s. He suggests that today’s accusations against Israel’s policy are a new face of old Jew-hatred, for example when he claims the ICC wants to “forbid Jews from living in their homeland”, branding this as “pure Jew-hatred” Reuters.

The Hasbara architecture under Netanyahu interlocks government agencies, military spokespeople, embassies, and a global network of supporters. It spreads uniform talking points, often adapted for social media. During the Gaza war of 2023, for example, official channels repeatedly used phrases like “human shields”, “terrorists in hospitals”, and “Hamas = ISIS” Jewish Voice for Labour. At the same time, Western journalists were specifically invited or pressured to adopt the Israeli perspective—through exclusive army briefings, or by denying access to critical reporters. Yet resistance to Israel’s dominance over the narrative increased: OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) and investigative journalists repeatedly exposed false claims (e.g. in 2021, the pro-Israel version of the killing of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, initially blamed on terrorists). Netanyahu and his government, however, rarely responded with admissions, but often doubled down or changed the topic. This information battle—deliberately fostering uncertainty until no one is sure what’s true—became under Netanyahu a weapon to gain time and ward off international pressure. Netanyahu’s success depended not only on military power but also on his talent as a narrative manager, using Hasbara and propaganda to legitimize Israel’s actions and silence moral criticism.

Chapter 5:

Links to Extremist Movements

One of the most controversial facets of Netanyahu’s political career is his alliance with extremist forces, both within Israel and abroad. In order to remain in power and implement his agenda, he has repeatedly brought ultranationalist, religious fundamentalist, and far right actors — once considered fringe — into the mainstream. This development became especially clear in recent years in Israeli politics. Netanyahu paved the way for the Kahanists, followers of the racist rabbi Meir Kahane, to enter parliament and government The Guardian.

For decades, Kahane’s ideology was taboo in Israel. The party he founded, Kach, was banned in 1988 for inciting racial hatred. Over the course of the 2010s, however, Netanyahu gradually broke down the barriers around these extremists. During the repeated elections between 2019 and 2022, he often failed to win a majority by just a few seats. To close the gap, Netanyahu pushed the fragmented far-right into an alliance. He convinced Itamar Ben-Gvir, the leader of the Kahanist Otzma Yehudit party (“Jewish Power”), and Bezalel Smotrich, leader of the hardline Religious Zionism party, to run together as a joint list. This strategy was successful: the far-right alliance entered parliament in 2022 with 14 seats and became the third largest faction. Netanyahu formed a coalition that gave these groups key ministries. Ben-Gvir became Minister of National Security, in charge of the police and parts of the occupied West Bank. Smotrich was given authority over the civil administration in the occupied territories, including responsibility for settlement construction. As a result, the government included people who openly support annexation and the policy of “transfer” — the expulsion of Arabs. Many observers now speak of a “Kahanization” of Israeli politics, and even Netanyahu’s own Likud party is now viewed as almost completely Kahanist in tone and agenda. The Guardian

These alliances have pushed Israeli politics far to the right. Ben-Gvir is a lifelong follower of Kahane with multiple convictions for racist incitement. Until recently, his home displayed a portrait of Baruch Goldstein, who killed 29 praying Muslims in Hebron in 1994. Ben-Gvir has publicly declared that he admires Kahane and shares his central goal: the complete annexation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the expulsion of Palestinians living there. What was once unthinkable, euphemistically called “transfer”, suddenly became government policy during the Gaza war in 2023. In October 2023, Israel’s Ministry of Intelligence drafted a strategic paper on the mass expulsion of Gazans to the Sinai desert. In February 2025, after a similar proposal by Donald Trump, Netanyahu’s government adopted this plan as official policy. Defense Minister Israel Katz ordered the army to prepare for implementation. It also emerged that Israel, with US support, had already contacted countries such as Sudan and Somalia about taking in deported Palestinians. This development, the realization of the Kahanist dream of mass expulsion, was a direct result of extremist influence within Netanyahu’s cabinet. The Guardian

Benjamin Netanyahu (right) with Itamar Ben-Gvir in the Israeli parliament in 2023. Netanyahu paved the way for the ultra-right-wing Kahanist Ben-Gvir to rise from the political fringe to high office . Ben-Gvir, once convicted of racism, became police minister under Netanyahu – a taboo breach in Israeli politics.

Netanyahu entered into these alliances out of political calculation. Extreme settler and rabbinic circles guaranteed him the loyalty of a core group of right-wing voters. In exchange, he was willing to serve their agenda. He gave the religious Zionist movement new influence and legitimacy, as long as they helped him maintain power. Critics, both in Israel and internationally, warn that Netanyahu has unleashed messianic forces that threaten Israel’s democracy Jerusalem Post. Even conservative commentators have written that Netanyahu has empowered “messianic fundamentalists for whom the democracy of the Zionist founding fathers is an abomination Jerusalem Post.” His government in 2023/24, backed by ultra-Orthodox parties and the Religious Zionist Alliance, is described as post-Zionist or even theocratic, since these coalition partners ultimately want a state governed by Halacha (Jewish religious law) and have referred to Netanyahu as the “donkey of the Messiah,” who simply paves the way for their agenda.

Netanyahu has also built questionable alliances with far-right forces outside Israel. In recent years, he has developed close relationships with right-wing populist and ultranationalist leaders in other countries. The most prominent example is his alliance with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who is internationally criticized for antisemitic rhetoric—particularly conspiracy theories about George Soros J Street. Nevertheless, Netanyahu called Orbán a “true friend of Israel” because Orbán, in return, has taken consistently pro-Israel positions in the EU and UN. Netanyahu has cultivated a network of illiberal allies, including Russia’s President Putin, former Brazilian president Bolsonaro, Indian Prime Minister Modi, Filippo Grandi in Italy, and the Trump administration in the United States. He shares with many of them a nationalist outlook and a willingness to overlook each other’s problematic aspects, be it Orbán’s antisemitism or Modi’s record on minorities. Netanyahu has also helped legitimize far-right parties in Europe. In 2023, he invited representatives of France’s Rassemblement National, Spain’s Vox, and Sweden’s Sweden Democrats to a conference in Jerusalem officially on combating antisemitism. Foreign Minister Gidon Sa’ar even established formal ties with these far-right parties after reviewing their positions on antisemitism. At the same time, Netanyahu’s Likud became the first non-European guest member of the Patriots.eu right-wing group in the European Parliament, which unites populist parties from France, Italy, Spain, and other countries. An MP from Austria’s Freedom Party (FPÖ) described this as a “kosher stamp from Israel” for the European far right J Street.

These global alliances are based on mutual political usefulness. Netanyahu ignores the anti-democratic or xenophobic tendencies of these partners as long as they are “right-wing pro-Israelis” who, for example, recognize Jerusalem’s status or vote against Palestinian resolutions at the UN. He understands that ultranationalist governments worldwide can support each other by downplaying human rights and offering diplomatic cover for each other’s actions. All these partners are united by their hostility to liberal values and international institutions. Orbán and others support Netanyahu in rejecting the International Criminal Court (ICC) or UN investigations of Israeli actions. According to critics, this alliance of right-wing nationalists undermines the global consensus on human rights and strengthens antisemitic forces in exchange for short-term political gains. Jewish organizations such as J Street warn that by courting Europe’s far right, Netanyahu also increases risks for Jewish communities worldwide, as he flatters notorious antisemites as long as they present themselves as friends of Israel. J Street

In summary, Netanyahu has fundamentally shifted the boundaries of what was once considered politically unacceptable. Kahanists in the cabinet, far-right ideologues as partners, autocrats as allies — all this would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. Netanyahu’s main calculation has always been political power: he allies with anyone who can provide a majority or a strategic advantage. This approach of instrumentalizing extremism has shifted Israel’s political center far to the right and harmed the country’s reputation among moderate allies. At the same time, it has kept Netanyahu in office, at least in the short term. But the cost is high: domestically, radical positions have become normalized; internationally, Israel has become more isolated due to questionable partnerships. Netanyahu now finds himself riding a right-wing bloc he helped create and hopes to control, but some already describe him as a “sorcerer’s apprentice” who can barely restrain the forces he has unleashed.

Chapter 6:

Long-Term Vision for Palestine: Displacement and Disempowerment

Netanyahu’s speeches and policies reveal a bleak long-term strategy towards the Palestinians. Instead of aiming for a negotiated solution, he appears to pursue a path of permanent control, gradual displacement, and political disempowerment of the Palestinian people. As early as the 1980s, Netanyahu discussed the idea that demographic trends could solve the “problem” of the Palestinian population. In 1988, before entering politics, he stated in an interview that Israel could retain areas like Gaza and the West Bank, since a “combination of eight variables” (such as birth rate and economic factors) would in the end force large numbers of Palestinians to emigrate Forward. He predicted that economic pressure would “naturally” shrink the Arab population, since people would look elsewhere for jobs. These assumptions proved wrong, about half the population between the river and the sea is Arab, and the Palestinian population continues to grow. Still, they show Netanyahu’s early mindset: rather than granting equal rights, he seemed to hope that enough pressure would lead Palestinians to leave.

In practice, this attitude is reflected in several aspects of Netanyahu’s policy. First, he has blocked the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state at all costs. As explained in Chapter 3, he has effectively prevented the two-state solution. Even during the peace process of the 1990s, Netanyahu acted destructively, for example, by expanding settlements or insisting on security arrangements that would have rendered any future Palestinian state meaningless. Yuval Diskin, former Shin Bet chief, openly stated in 2012 that Netanyahu’s government had “no interest in solving anything” in the conflict, despite what it claimed TIME. Netanyahu’s real strategy seemed to be buying time and creating facts on the ground. Through settlement expansion (more than 700,000 Israelis now live beyond the Green Line, including in East Jerusalem), the West Bank has been so fragmented that a contiguous Palestinian state is nearly impossible. Netanyahu has repeatedly emphasized he will not evacuate settlements and that “every Jew has the right to live everywhere in the Land of Israel,” including the occupied territories Reuters. The 2018 Nation-State Law, which defines Israel explicitly as the nation-state of the Jewish people, also codified that only Jews have the right to self-determination in Israel. Palestinians were not mentioned, which many saw as proof of institutional exclusion NPR.

Second, Netanyahu’s approach is focused on permanent control and “management” rather than resolution. In the occupied territories, he pursued the idea of controlled autonomy without true sovereignty. At most, Palestinians were offered “autonomy,” as Netanyahu remarked sarcastically in 1996 comparing it to Catalans in Spain, who also lack their own state Forward. In reality, he tolerated the Palestinian Authority (PA) as an administrative body but never granted it true attributes of statehood. Oslo II (1995) and subsequent agreements were supposed to decide the permanent status by 1999, but Netanyahu blocked serious negotiations. Instead, a status quo emerged: the PA administers fragmented enclaves (Areas A and B), while Israel retains full control over Area C (60% of the West Bank) and East Jerusalem. Netanyahu’s frequent position was that the Israeli army must “permanently control all territory west of the Jordan,” a stance that effectively killed any prospect for real Palestinian sovereignty. In practice, this “conflict management” means there is no peace, but also no progress for the Palestinians—just a stalemate that gradually shifts the balance further in Israel’s favor.

Third, Netanyahu’s strategy involves targeted disempowerment and division of the Palestinians. He benefited from the division between Fatah and Hamas and did little to heal this rift — in fact, he often exploited it. Gaza and the West Bank have become completely separated under his leadership. After Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007, Israel imposed a blockade, which Netanyahu later intensified. He frequently described Gaza as a separate hostile territory, cut off from the West Bank. During his time in office, Israel conducted several military operations in Gaza (2012, 2014, 2021, 2023), aimed at weakening Hamas but also causing massive destruction and humanitarian suffering. Paradoxically, Netanyahu indirectly stabilized Hamas rule by permitting money transfers from Qatar, knowing that as long as Hamas ruled Gaza and remained at odds with Fatah, there would be no united Palestinian counterpart for negotiations. This was a clear “divide and rule” strategy. The goal seemed to be to break the Palestinians into small, easily controlled units—Gaza here, the West Bank there, and East Jerusalem completely cut off from the Palestinian side. In the West Bank, Netanyahu systematically weakened the PA through financial penalties (withholding tax revenues), the construction of thousands of new settlements, and the erosion of the Oslo Accords. Israeli forces increasingly entered even PA-controlled cities for arrests. Palestinian NGOs and civil society actors demanding their rights were labeled as “terror supporters.” In 2021, Netanyahu’s government designated six respected Palestinian human rights organizations as “terrorist,” provoking international outrage. All of this left Palestinians politically and economically dependent, forced to rely on Israeli permission for almost everything — from building permits to travel.

Fourth, Netanyahu has promoted displacement through specific projects. There is evidence that he has pursued master plans to push back Palestinian presence. In East Jerusalem, for instance, the policy of “Judaization” was intensified under his government. Large projects like the E1 plan aimed to connect Jerusalem with Ma’ale Adumim and block a Palestinian corridor between northern and southern West Bank. In the Jordan Valley, a fertile border region, Netanyahu encouraged Jewish agricultural settlements and announced in 2019 his intention to annex the area. Although this formal annexation was stopped by international criticism and the Abraham Accords, such announcements reveal Netanyahu’s long-term vision: maximum land, minimum Arabs.

This vision became brutally clear in the autumn of 2023 after the Hamas attack on October 7. Parts of Netanyahu’s coalition saw it as an opportunity to implement radical “solutions.” As mentioned above, the idea of emptying Gaza emerged—something previously unthinkable in public. The Netanyahu government actually adopted this idea, confirming the worst fears that the mass expulsion of Palestinians, similar to the 1948 Nakba, is seen by some as a real option The Guardian.

“Separate the women and children and kill the adult men in Gaza [...] We are being too considerate.”
Such statements are extreme, but they were voiced in Netanyahu’s circle without him clearly rejecting them. This too fits his strategy—maintaining ambiguity. Officially, Netanyahu never speaks of ethnic cleansing; in English, he assures the world that Gazans should be able to live in peace, just not under Hamas. Yet in parallel, his government appears to work on plans that could lead to the creation of a “new Gaza Strip elsewhere.” The fact that African countries such as Sudan were considered as possible destinations for up to two million Palestinians shows just how radical the thinking behind the scenes has become.

Overall, Netanyahu’s long-term approach leads to permanent Israeli dominance throughout historic Palestine and minimizes Palestinian self-determination. Officially, he indignantly rejects accusations of apartheid, but in reality, a system has developed that human rights organizations describe as “one group ruling over another without granting political rights.” Netanyahu himself fueled such assessments when, in 2019, he wrote:

“[Israel is] the national state, not of all its citizens, but only of the Jewish people.”
Benjamin Netanyahu NPR
For the approximately 6.8 million Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem—who live under Israeli control but do not have Israeli citizenship—this attitude means lasting disenfranchisement. Netanyahu’s long-term vision seems to be not to allow the creation of a Palestinian state, but to reduce “Palestine” to an administrative problem managed by Israel—whether through restricted autonomy, forced emigration, or, in the worst case, expulsion. This vision has been leaked or openly expressed at times (as by his father Benzion, who saw violence as the only solution), and it is reflected in the harsh realities on the ground. It is a plan for demographic and political subjugation, cleverly hidden behind tactical concessions and soothing words for the international community, which Netanyahu has been pursuing for decades.

Chapter 7:

Dealing with International Criticism and Legal Consequences

Netanyahu’s government has long been at the center of international criticism from the United Nations and NGOs to the International Criminal Court (ICC). His response is characterized by rejection, counterattacks, and active obstruction. He has developed mechanisms to delegitimize accusations and avoid real legal consequences.

On the diplomatic stage, Netanyahu often meets UN resolutions and reports with open defiance. For example, he repeatedly ignored UN Security Council resolutions against settlement construction (most recently UNSCR 2334 in late 2016), dismissing them as “unfair” and continuing construction regardless. In the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), Israel is a “permanent target of criticism,” which Netanyahu uses to portray the body as fundamentally biased. In 2012, he called the UNHRC a “hypocrisy show against Israel” after it adopted the Goldstone Report on Gaza. Netanyahu systematically refused to cooperate with UN investigations—whether related to the 2008/09 Gaza War (Goldstone Commission) or later conflicts. Instead, Israel launched diplomatic campaigns to undermine such investigations. In the Goldstone case, massive pressure led to South African jurist Richard Goldstone retracting part of his report—an achievement for Israeli Hasbara and proof for Netanyahu that an aggressive response to criticism pays off. Consequently, Israel also acted forcefully against the 2021 Amnesty and HRW “apartheid” reports (see Chapter 4), pressuring some governments to distance themselves. Netanyahu relies on close allies: the US has often shielded Israel, blocking resolutions. Under Trump, Netanyahu found a like-minded partner who openly mocked international criticism (such as the US withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council in 2018, a move Netanyahu welcomed). Netanyahu’s strategy is clear: weaken international forums when they criticize Israel, whether through alliances (for example, with Orbán in the EU, who blocks sanctions) or by loudly condemning the institutions themselves.

When faced with legal steps by the international community, Netanyahu is especially combative. When the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague announced in 2019/20 that it would investigate alleged war crimes in the occupied territories, Netanyahu responded with sharp personal attacks. He accused ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda of “blatant antisemitism” should she dare to indict Israelis Reuters. In a symbolic speech at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, he condemned the possible investigation as “new anti-Jewish decrees” and claimed the court was denying the Jewish people their right to live in their land Reuters. Netanyahu called the initiative “pure antisemitism,” hoping to win support in Western countries. This charge of antisemitism is his sharpest weapon against legal criticism. He reverses the roles and presents Israel as the victim of age-old persecution, now in the form of international jurists. The tactic has worked: many Israelis, and even some politicians in countries like Germany, have struggled to support measures labeled as antisemitic. Netanyahu’s government has also questioned the ICC’s jurisdiction, arguing that Palestine is not a recognized state and Israel is not a party to the ICC. The aim is to undermine proceedings from the outset. The US (under Trump) even threatened the ICC with sanctions. Netanyahu’s goal is clear: buy time and create political pressure so that the ICC hesitates or backs down. Reuters

Nevertheless, in 2021 the ICC officially opened an investigation into crimes in the Palestinian territories. Since then, Israel has refused any cooperation, and Netanyahu made clear that no Israeli would ever voluntarily appear before the court. Instead, Israel relies on diplomatic protection. Netanyahu thanked countries like Hungary for promising immunity (in March 2023, Orbán invited Netanyahu to Budapest in open defiance of a possible arrest warrant) Jacobin. When reports surfaced in 2023 that the ICC had secretly issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Defense Minister Gallant over the Gaza war, there was outrage in Israel PBS. Politicians across the spectrum including Netanyahu’s critics, closed ranks and called the warrants “a reward for terrorism” and a “moral bankruptcy” of the ICC. Netanyahu stated that Israel “despises and rejects this absurd decision with disgust.” The Guardian. The government claimed that the IDF (Israeli army) has its own high-level investigation system and there is no need for foreign interference, this is the standard argument against the ICC. In reality, however, human rights organizations criticize that Israel rarely investigates or prosecutes its own soldiers or officials for offenses against Palestinians. Netanyahu still uses these nominal investigations as a shield. As long as Israel can claim to be investigating itself, the ICC principle of complementarity blocks further action from The Hague. Netanyahu thus has an interest in occasionally simulating minimal legal steps domestically to take the wind out of the ICC’s sails Jewish Chronicle.

Another area is Netanyahu’s handling of NGOs and human rights organizations. His governments are known for harassing critical NGOs. Groups such as B’Tselem or Breaking the Silence are labeled as “traitors” and “foreign agents.” In 2016, the coalition passed an NGO law that imposed special reporting requirements on organizations with foreign funding (which applies to many human rights NGOs), widely understood as an attempt to make their work more difficult. International NGOs like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have faced access restrictions from Netanyahu’s officials; in 2019, HRW’s director for Israel, Omar Shakir, was denied a visa and expelled. Their reports are publicly denounced as lies, propaganda, or antisemitic NPR. Netanyahu’s communications advisers do not shy away from personal attacks against Western critics, accusing EU officials of double standards or of being internal enemies. Netanyahu has often claimed that Europe funds “chaos-creating” NGOs in Israel to destabilize the country, framing external criticism as part of global conspiracies against Israel, a narrative that finds support at home.

Netanyahu’s own legal troubles are also worth noting, though for a different reason. Since 2020, he has been on trial in Israel for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. He responded in a familiar way, speaking of a “witch hunt” by dark forces (media, the left, police) and attempting to reshape the justice system through a controversial judicial reform designed to help him avoid conviction Jerusalem Post. This domestic crisi marked by mass protests against the erosion of checks and balances also affects the Palestinian issue. Netanyahu struck deals with right-wing coalition partners for their support on judicial reform, giving them a free hand on settlement and security matters in return. He was willing to make extreme concessions to the settler bloc, including fast-tracking land confiscations and bypassing legal checks on settlement expansion, all to secure his political survival. This resulted in de facto annexation; in 2023, the government rapidly approved tens of thousands of new settlement units. International criticism followed, but Netanyahu, focused on staying in office, simply ignored it as usual.

In summary, Netanyahu’s strategy towards international criticism is threefold: deny, attack, and wait it out. Denial means refusing to acknowledge wrongdoing or to yield to legitimate demands (such as compliance with the Fourth Geneva Convention in occupied territories). Attack means smearing critics as antisemitic, supporters of terror, or hypocrites — thus flipping the accusation. Waiting it out means playing for time until the news cycle changes, while creating facts on the ground and relying on powerful friends, especially the United States. Legal prosecution for Gaza wars or settlement policy is blocked by any means necessary, including political deals (in the past, Israel even threatened to halt peace negotiations if ICC pressure grew too strong — a form of blackmail). At the same time, Netanyahu positions Israel as an indispensable partner in fighting terror and as a high-tech and security powerhouse, which leads Western countries to tone down their criticism out of pragmatism.

Whether this strategy will work in the long run remains to be seen. More and more voices, from former allies to liberal Jews in the diaspora, are turning away from Netanyahu due to the openly extremist tendencies of his government. The legal reckoning for war crimes in Gaza, especially after the devastating 2023 bombardments with tens of thousands of civilian deaths, may yet catch up with Netanyahu and Israel. He already avoids certain countries out of fear of arrest warrants. However, he is confident that geopolitics, above all US protection, will save him from the worst. So far, this calculation has worked: international law has often yielded to realpolitik, and Netanyahu’s strategy of waiting out harsh criticism has often succeeded. Yet Israel’s reputation has been badly damaged. Should Netanyahu eventually leave office, his legacy will include a level of international isolation that will be hard to repair. Until then, his motto for dealing with criticism remains: deny and counterattack. As he once classified the ICC investigation as "pure anti-Semitism" Reuters.

Summary:

Netanyahu Uncovered

1. Familial Background and Ideological Formation:
  • Netanyahu grew up in a deeply ideological family, shaped by his father Benzion’s revisionist Zionism and the teachings of Ze’ev Jabotinsky.
  • His worldview was profoundly influenced by the conviction that any territorial compromise threatens Israel’s existence.

2. Early Education and Political Network:
  • Netanyahu’s education in Israel and the US built a global network and access to elite circles, including American think tanks and policy advisors.
  • He cultivated ties with powerful US political actors, which boosted his career and his government’s ability to influence international opinion.

3. Zionist Ideology: Aggressive, Expansionist Course:
  • His policies are rooted in a revisionist, expansionist form of Zionism, focused on the defense and expansion of “Greater Israel.”
  • Netanyahu has consistently blocked the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state and promoted large-scale settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

4. Strategies of Disinformation and Propaganda:
  • Netanyahu’s governments have used state-driven public relations (“Hasbara”) to frame Israel as a besieged moral victim, discrediting Palestinian narratives and international criticism.
  • Through extensive media campaigns, social media influence, and denial tactics, critical NGOs and institutions have been attacked or delegitimized.

5. Links to Extremist Movements:
  • Netanyahu enabled far-right and religious extremists, such as Kahanists, to gain unprecedented influence in Israeli politics and government.
  • He built alliances with right-wing populist leaders internationally, prioritizing strategic interests over democratic or human rights concerns.

6. Long-Term Vision for Palestine: Displacement and Disempowerment:
  • Netanyahu’s strategy centers on long-term control, demographic pressure, and preventing genuine Palestinian statehood.
  • His policies have promoted fragmentation, dependency, and weakened Palestinian political and civil society, with master plans aimed at minimizing Palestinian presence.

7. Dealing with International Criticism and Legal Consequences:
  • Netanyahu consistently rejects and attacks international criticism, undermines institutions like the UN and ICC, and labels legal scrutiny as antisemitic.
  • He relies on diplomatic alliances and legal maneuvering to shield Israel and himself from meaningful accountability, while using denial and aggressive rhetoric as core strategies.