Over the last year, like so many people, I have been shocked by the ferocity and zeal with which Benjamin Netanyahu has been pursuing the Palestinian and wider West Asia. It surprised me that nobody was asking the question to what extent the Israeli government were being driven by Netanyahu’s personal mission of revenge? Finally, I got my v-RA to see what the general opinion on this is…
Interpreting Benjamin Netanyahu’s motivations means separating personal influences from broader political strategies and from state ‘imperatives’. Many factors influence Netanyahu’s policies toward Palestinians and neighbouring states, and it’s crucial to distinguish between the realms of personal revenge and national defence policies, as well as the language around genocide and the specific historical-political context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Personal and Familial Impact of Entebbe: Jonathan Netanyahu’s death in the Entebbe raid in 1976 has been noted as a significant personal tragedy for Benjamin Netanyahu, who has often spoken publicly about his brother’s heroism and the impact of the loss. Jonathan’s death could have heightened Netanyahu’s sensitivity to threats against Israel, potentially intensifying his resolve to adopt a stringent stance on security. It’s possible that this personal loss has fostered a defensive, even hawkish, worldview, especially towards those perceived as existential threats. However, framing this stance purely as personal revenge risks oversimplifying a broader political agenda and sidestepping other motivations.
Political Ideology and State Policy: Netanyahu has often framed his policies as necessary for the security of Israel. He presents Iran, Lebanon (particularly Hezbollah), and Hamas in Gaza as direct threats, each with explicit calls for Israel’s elimination. Netanyahu’s actions, then, could be viewed within the “realist” approach to politics, where a leader prioritises the state’s survival above all else. The intensity of his policies towards these regions may reflect this ideological stance more than any personal vendetta stemming from Jonathan’s death.
Genocide or Defensive Action?: The term “genocide” carries significant weight and has specific legal definitions. Netanyahu’s policies, including settlements, blockades, and military actions, have led to unprecedented Palestinian suffering, yet his supporters argue these are defensive measures rather than an attempt to annihilate a people. International bodies like the United Nations and various human rights organisations have criticised these policies as breaches of human rights. This week, however, they have labelled them as genocide. This implies an intent to destroy a group entirely, which is challenging to substantiate given the stated goals of Israeli policy, however sufficient ‘red lines’ have now been crossed. As a result, the Israeli government have passed legislation proscribing the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) as a terrorist organisation and banning them from operating in Israel and Palestine. As the UNRWA are the primary route to deliver aid, medicines, food, fuel and education to Gaza and the West Bank, this action is effectively going to prompt a massive increase in starvation and life-threatening diseases.
Domestic Political Calculations: Netanyahu’s rhetoric and policies may also be driven by his need to maintain political support within Israel, particularly from right-wing constituencies who demand a hard stance on security. This hard-line approach could appeal to voters by projecting strength, especially in an environment where any perceived weakness can be politically damaging. The fear of Palestinian, Iranian, and Lebanese aggression is a powerful tool for securing domestic support, which suggests that his policies are also motivated by political pragmatism rather than simply revenge.
Psychological Dimensions: Although personal motivations are difficult to gauge, it’s plausible that the trauma of losing his brother does contribute to Netanyahu’s resilience and wariness. As a figure who often champions the cause of national resilience, Netanyahu may indeed project his personal story onto the national narrative. However, interpreting his policies solely as an expression of personal revenge underestimates the broader institutional and strategic dimensions influencing Israeli actions.
So, while Jonathan Netanyahu’s death may have influenced Benjamin Netanyahu’s worldview, his policies towards Palestinians and neighbouring countries likely stem from a complex interplay of personal, political, and ideological factors. His actions are better understood as strategic, albeit controversial, responses rather than as an act of personal revenge.