Netanyahu may fall because he lost wars, not because he started them.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces mounting pressure over his handling of military operations in Gaza, with critics arguing that his leadership could collapse not because he initiated the conflict, but because he failed to secure its outcome. Recent developments have intensified scrutiny of his administration’s strategy and its consequences, particularly following remarks made by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir during a podcast interview. Two weeks ago, Ben-Gvir participated in a podcast hosted by Rom Braslavski, a former Hamas detainee known for his extreme views. During the conversation, Ben-Gvir outlined a plan for the final resolution of the Palestinian issue, emphasizing the need for Israeli forces to kill between 30 and 40 individuals each night in Gaza. He argued this was not limited to those posing an immediate threat, suggesting a broader policy of targeted violence. The discussion took place alongside Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, both of whom are central figures in Netanyahu's right-wing government, which has been characterized as messianic, colonial, ultra-nationalist, and militantly extremist. Ben-Gvir expressed opposition to Netanyahu’s decision to reduce attacks on Gaza under the current “ceasefire agreement,” a move influenced by U.S. President Donald Trump’s mediation. This stance marks a divergence from the prime minister’s approach, which seeks to balance military action with diplomatic efforts. Ben-Gvir, however, has long been a vocal critic of any ceasefire, advocating instead for continued offensive operations against Palestinian targets. The political implications of these statements are significant. Netanyahu’s government has faced increasing criticism for its inability to achieve decisive results in the ongoing conflict, despite extensive military campaigns. Analysts suggest that the failure to gain strategic advantages in Gaza could undermine public confidence in Netanyahu’s leadership, potentially leading to his downfall. Unlike the controversy surrounding the initiation of hostilities, the focus is shifting toward the outcomes of military actions and their impact on Israel’s security and international standing. Netanyahu’s administration has struggled to maintain control over the military narrative, with internal divisions emerging among key ministers. While some support a more aggressive posture, others advocate for restraint, reflecting deeper ideological fractures within the ruling coalition. These tensions have complicated efforts to present a unified front, further weakening Netanyahu’s position. Political observers note that the recent comments by Ben-Gvir highlight the growing influence of hardline factions within the government. Their push for increased military activity contrasts sharply with the more cautious approach favored by some members of Netanyahu’s inner circle. This divide underscores the instability within the government and raises questions about the sustainability of Netanyahu’s leadership amid rising domestic and international pressures. As the situation continues to evolve, the focus will remain on whether Netanyahu can navigate these challenges while maintaining public support. The upcoming months will likely determine whether his government can consolidate power or face internal collapse due to its inability to deliver tangible military success. For now, the spotlight remains on the outcomes of military operations rather than their initiation, marking a critical turning point in the political landscape.