Netanyahu should lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's current leadership crisis can be likened to the principles of General George S. Patton Jr., who famously said that one can either lead him, follow him, or "get the hell" out of his way. General Patton was a no-nonsense United States Army general who led troops in World War II, and his quote has become a cornerstone for understanding the complicated art of leading. Besides other fundamental competencies in leadership, taking responsibility is crucial as it builds trust and respect, and promotes honesty, transparency, and accountability for both successes and failures. Accepting responsibility thus demonstrates integrity, humility, and a commitment to personal growth and development.

Following a devastating attack by Hamas terrorists on October 7, Israeli officials have taken responsibility for their failures in preventing the violence that led to the current conflict. However, Netanyahu has refused to accept responsibility for the situation. The attack was a horrific display of violence, with Hamas terrorists killing innocent civilians, including women and children, and taking hostages. Since the start of this conflict, Netanyahu has struggled to define his clear goals and strategies. He has been confused about dealing with his cabinet, the public, and Israeli allies – shifting blame onto others, and prioritizing his political survival over the needs of the nation.

Last week, he publicly criticized his strongest ally, the United States, for withholding weapons needed for the war. Directing sharp criticisms at President Joe Biden, he suggested that this delay was hindering Israel's offensive in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, where ongoing fighting has worsened the already dire humanitarian situation for Palestinians. In reality, Biden had postponed the delivery of certain heavy bombs since May due to concerns about Israel's actions resulting in civilian casualties in Gaza. However, Netanyahu conveniently omitted the fact that he had outright rejected the U.S. request to reconsider a full-scale invasion of Rafah, where over 1 million people are seeking refuge. Defiantly, he asserted that Israel would continue its mission to eradicate Hamas, with or without U.S. support.

Netanyahu's uncompromising stance on challenging policy issues persisted as he dissolved his war Cabinet last week to consolidate his authority over military decisions. Before this move, his main political rival, Benny Gantz, a retired general and member of parliament known for his moderate views, withdrew from the three-member war Cabinet. This means that major war strategies will now be exclusively approved by Netanyahu's security Cabinet, a larger body dominated by hard-liners who oppose the U.S.-backed cease-fire proposal and advocate for continuing the conflict.

Israel is currently facing a political dilemma with Netanyahu at the helm. The political landscape has been turbulent, with Netanyahu facing a growing opposition. This was exemplified by the recent passing of a controversial judicial overhaul bill in the Israeli parliament, sparking civil resistance. The situation escalated when reservists, including F-16 pilots, refused to fly under Netanyahu's leadership until the anti-democratic bill was revoked. These actions not only impact military readiness but also underscore internal threats to Israel's democracy.

In March, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called for new elections in Israel, criticizing Netanyahu as an impediment to peace. Schumer, a long-time supporter of Israel and the highest-ranking U.S. Jewish elected official expressed concerns about Netanyahu's government and highlighted the need for change in leadership, especially during a war that began with attacks on Israel by Hamas militants.

Schumer's sentiments are shared by many, as Netanyahu's prolonged tenure has raised concerns about stagnation and a lack of fresh ideas. The Prime Minister's multiple corruption charges have also tarnished his leadership, contributing to increased polarization within Israeli society. A new leader could potentially bring innovative approaches to address pressing issues and bridge divisions within the country.

There are significant policy issues at play in Israel, particularly under Netanyahu’s leadership. His policies on settlements, security, and the peace process have sparked controversy and debate. Critics argue that his stance on settlements has impeded the possibility of a two-state solution by expanding Israeli presence in the West Bank. Furthermore, his approach to security, including military actions in Gaza and Lebanon, has been criticized as heavy-handed and counterproductive to peace efforts. The peace process itself has stagnated under his leadership, with many accusing him of prioritizing Israeli interests over finding a resolution with the Palestinians. Overall, Netanyahu's policies have created division both domestically and internationally.

Looking ahead, the question arises: what is his strategy to effectively lead Israel? Is Netanyahu prepared to develop a comprehensive plan that combines diplomatic efforts, security measures, and economic policies? Will he prioritize strengthening relationships with key allies, such as the United States, while also working to improve ties with neighboring countries in the Middle East? Is he committed to implementing initiatives to boost Israel's economy and address social issues within the country? Would he be open to spearheading a multifaceted plan aimed at ensuring Israel's security and prosperity in the years ahead? Ultimately, is Netanyahu prepared to lead, follow, or step aside for the greater good?