Despite intense scrutiny on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, experts believe a leadership change would not alter the situation in Gaza

Critics of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has faced numerous corruption charges and widespread protests, often focus on his controversial policies towards Gaza. However, experts suggest that his resignation might not necessarily lead to improved conditions or safety in the region. This insight emerges as Netanyahu’s approach to the ongoing conflict in Gaza, particularly following the Hamas-led attack on October 7, appears to have broad support within Israeli society, which has been shifting towards more right-wing and ultra-religious stances over the years.

Despite the personal controversies surrounding Netanyahu, his strategic objectives, especially those related to the war in Gaza, continue to resonate with a significant portion of the Israeli population. Mairav Zonszein, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group, points out that the blending of national security concerns with domestic politics makes Netanyahu’s policies widely acceptable, irrespective of his personal legal challenges. This acceptance is reflected in public opinion polls and the composition of the current Israeli cabinet, which includes figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, known for their far-right positions.

Observers like Haim Bresheeth, an Israeli scholar and professor of film studies, argue that the societal shift in Israel has been towards a more militaristic and nationalistic posture, a trend that predates Netanyahu’s current term. This shift suggests that the issues at play are systemic and deeply embedded within the Israeli political and social landscape, rather than being solely the output of Netanyahu’s personal leadership style.

The international response to Israel’s actions in Gaza, including critiques from the United Nations and other global bodies, has had little impact on changing these deeply ingrained attitudes. Israeli officials have routinely dismissed international criticisms and calls for ceasefires as biased or anti-Semitic, underscoring the defensive posture adopted by the country’s political leadership against global opinion.

The enduring support for a hardline approach in Gaza highlights a complex interplay of internal politics, where the battle lines are drawn not just around Netanyahu’s leadership but around broader ideological stances that view the Palestinian territories through a security lens. This perspective is unlikely to change significantly with Netanyahu’s departure, as indicated by the resilience of right-wing attitudes among the Israeli public and their representatives.

As the conflict continues, with devastating human costs, the debate within Israel about the future of its policies towards Gaza remains contentious. The potential for significant shifts in strategy seems minimal, suggesting that any change in leadership might not necessarily translate into a change in the course of the ongoing conflict.