Netanyahu must go: Desperate politics of survival

Netanyahu is fighting to remain prime minister while facing a broad political reckoning. The election is Israel’s first national vote since October 7, 2023. Gaza, international isolation, demands for accountability, and questions about his leadership have weakened his position. The result could decide whether he survives politically.

His central challenge is that even some voters who share his worldview may now see him as a liability. The article identifies three major pressures at home, including the unresolved question of how Israel’s worst security failure was allowed to happen. Abroad, the ICC warrant, the ICJ case, and diplomatic isolation deepen the burden.

Netanyahu is trying to change the election’s focus. By emphasizing danger and national security, he can present himself as the leader who protects Israelis. Whether that strategy works remains uncertain. If voters instead prioritize accountability, the election could end his long political dominance.

On September 30, Flydubai Flight FZ1073 flew from Dubai to Tel Aviv when its co-pilot allegedly attacked the captain with a cockpit crash axe. The co-pilot reportedly tried to seize control. The aircraft then plunged more than 16,000 feet in about 30 seconds. Investigators are still examining the motive and possible involvement of others.

The wounded captain opened the cockpit door, and passengers rushed inside. Israeli passenger Yaniv Hayun reportedly helped stabilize the plane. He said his familiarity came from watching Air Crash Investigation. The incident produced a vivid story of danger, resistance, and survival aboard a civilian aircraft.

Netanyahu quickly met and praised the passengers. He linked them publicly with the “heroes” who defeated the alleged attackers. Israeli media saw clear electoral value. The episode let him move attention from accountability toward fear, security, and his long-standing claim to be Israel’s protector.

The protest involved 77 delegations during Netanyahu’s address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 24. Some delegations refused to be seated. Others walked out. The scale made the event more than a routine diplomatic disagreement and created a striking public display of opposition.

The walkout mattered because Netanyahu had long presented his access to Washington and other Western capitals as evidence that Israel needed him. Diplomatic presence traditionally communicates recognition, engagement, or willingness to listen. Empty seats and departing delegations therefore carried a sharply different message.

The article presents the incident as evidence of Israel’s deteriorating international standing. It places the walkout alongside the ICC warrant, the ICJ proceedings, and criticism from human rights organizations and genocide scholars. The political impact is indirect but serious: international isolation can reinforce claims that Netanyahu has become a liability, even among Israelis who share his outlook.

A security crisis can redirect voters’ attention from past failures to immediate danger. Instead of asking what a government did wrong, voters may focus on who appears capable of protecting them. For a leader whose political identity depends on security, that emotional shift can be especially valuable.

The Flydubai incident shows the mechanism. A cockpit attack, a plunging aircraft, and passengers fighting to regain control created powerful images. Netanyahu met the passengers and praised them as heroes. Israeli media reported that he was using the episode to center the election on fear and national security.

The consequence is a changed political test. Netanyahu can portray himself as a necessary protector rather than answer questions about Gaza, October 7, or his conduct in office. The article does not establish whether voters will be persuaded. It does show that crisis can provide a campaign lifeline when accountability threatens a leader’s position.

The International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice perform different legal roles. The ICC prosecutes individuals for alleged international crimes. The ICJ adjudicates disputes between states. This distinction matters because the two cases mentioned in the article concern different defendants, procedures, and forms of responsibility.

On November 21, 2024, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu over allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Netanyahu rejects the allegations. Separately, South Africa brought a case against Israel before the ICJ under the Genocide Convention. Israel, rather than Netanyahu personally, is the state involved in that dispute.

The ICJ has imposed provisional measures, but the article stresses that it has not issued a final judgment determining that Israel committed genocide. The cases can therefore create major political and legal pressure without being treated as the same proceeding. Their different mandates must remain clear.

October 7 created pressure for an independent investigation because the article describes it as Israel’s worst security failure in history. Three years later, the most fundamental question remained unresolved: how could such a failure happen? Without a credible inquiry, responsibility for missed warnings, intelligence failures, and leadership decisions remains contested.

The pressure reaches Israel’s political leadership because Netanyahu built his identity around understanding security and protecting Israelis. The attack therefore challenges the foundation of his public persona. An independent investigation could examine what warnings existed, how intelligence was handled, and which decisions shaped the country’s preparedness, rather than allowing political messaging to settle the issue.

The article presents this unresolved question as one of three threats to Netanyahu’s political foundations. His opponents can use it to demand accountability. His supporters may still prioritize security and fear. The election will show whether voters focus on the failure itself or accept his attempt to redirect attention toward present dangers.

Fear changes what voters value. During a frightening crisis, immediate safety can feel more urgent than investigations, legal allegations, or past failures. A leader associated with protection can benefit because insecurity makes experience and decisiveness appear more important than accountability.

Netanyahu has repeatedly built his political career around the claim that only he can protect Israelis. The Flydubai incident gave that message a vivid stage: an attacker allegedly inside the cockpit, a plunging aircraft, and passengers fighting to prevent catastrophe. Netanyahu praised those passengers and linked the episode to national security.

This does not guarantee electoral success. The article says whether the incident will sway voters remains uncertain. But the political mechanism is clear. Fear allows Netanyahu to replace questions about what he must answer for with questions about who can keep Israelis safe. That shift can preserve his support even while Gaza, October 7, and international cases threaten his leadership.