The War on Benjamin Netanyahu
Is the State of Israel using lawfare to take down its own prime minister?
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
The arrests on Monday of Jonatan Urich and Eli Feldstein — two of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s closest aides — has once again thrust Israel’s most enduring political figure into the center of controversy.
The so-called “Qatargate” scandal, alleging unlawful financial ties between senior Israeli officials and Qatar, gained new urgency Monday as Netanyahu himself was summoned for testimony. His motorcade arrived at his office early in the evening following a truncated court appearance in his ongoing corruption trial.
The timing of these developments, just as Israeli Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara ordered the police to summon the prime minister, is raising old questions in new ways: Is this merely the due process of law, or a weaponization of legal tools against a sitting prime minister?
To understand the moment, one must look deeper into the many sides of Benjamin Netanyahu — the politician, the symbol, and the target.
For years, Benjamin Netanyahu has faced a barrage of legal battles. His ongoing trial on charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust began well before the proposed judicial overhaul legislation that ignited mass protests in 2023, pre-October 7th.
The timing is critical. These charges were not brought in reaction to any supposed power grab; they predate it. This raises a provocative possibility that has gained traction among many Israelis across the political spectrum: that Netanyahu has been subjected to lawfare, the use of legal mechanisms as political weapons.
In this view, the charges against Netanyahu are not purely about justice or accountability. Rather, they are attempts to achieve by courtroom what cannot be achieved at the ballot box. Netanyahu, despite scandals, has shown a remarkable ability to retain public support and win elections — an ability that frustrates both his rivals and segments of the Israeli Left-wing elite.
Among the Israeli public, two main theories attempt to explain the apparent legal obsession with Netanyahu.
The first points to the composition of Israel’s law enforcement agencies, particularly the police. Long dominated by Mizrahi Jews — descendants of Jewish communities from the Middle East and North Africa — Israel’s police have never seen one of their own rise to the position of prime minister.
In fact, all of Israel’s prime ministers to date have been Ashkenazi, like Netanyahu. Some argue that resentment toward the Ashkenazi establishment and its historical marginalization of Mizrahi Jews has morphed into an aggressive stance toward the most prominent Ashkenazi political figure of the era. Under this theory, law enforcement isn’t acting independently or ideologically; it’s expressing generational frustration in the only way available to it: through investigation and prosecution.
The second theory is more conventional in its alignment with political power. It sees Netanyahu as the enduring enemy of Israel’s Far-Left establishment — what some have dubbed the Israeli “Deep State.” This elite includes influential media figures, senior bureaucrats, and elements within the judiciary, all of whom see Netanyahu’s populism, nationalism, and alignment with the religious Right as dangerous.
Since they cannot remove him through democratic means, this theory holds, they seek to do so through legal attrition. Every new investigation, arrest, and headline is not an accident of justice; it is a strategy.
To assume Netanyahu’s legal entanglements are uniquely unprecedented would be to overlook Israel’s long and complex dance between law, politics, and power.
In the 1970s, then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin resigned after it was discovered that his wife maintained a foreign bank account, in violation of Israeli law. Rabin was never charged, and many saw the enforcement of the rule as disproportionately harsh — a moment when legality trumped political common sense. His departure cleared the path for a new generation of leadership, including Menachem Begin and the Likud1 revolution.
More dramatically, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was indicted and later convicted on corruption charges in the late 2000s, ultimately serving jail time. But even that process, while legally sound, raised eyebrows for its timing. Olmert had lost political ground and was viewed by some as no longer useful to the elite institutions that had once supported him.
Perhaps the most relevant case is that of Ariel Sharon. In the early 2000s, Sharon and his sons were under investigation for serious financial misconduct. Yet the probes seemed to vanish from public scrutiny the moment Sharon announced his Gaza Disengagement Plan — winning him newfound favor among political and judicial elites who had once eyed him suspiciously. The message was clear to some: The law is flexible when politics demand it.
Netanyahu’s supporters point to these episodes as evidence that Israel’s legal system, though independent on paper, has always operated within a complex web of political pressures, ideological preferences, and historical context. In their view, Netanyahu is simply the latest (and perhaps most dangerous) threat to the balance of power long held by an entrenched establishment.
Adding fuel to the fire is Netanyahu’s recent announcement of a new Shin Bet2 chief — effectively ending the tenure of Ronen Bar, a key figure in Israel’s security establishment.
Bar’s leadership came under scrutiny in the aftermath of October 7th, where intelligence and preparedness failures opened the door to the Hamas attacks that shocked the country. But despite this, Bar remained central to ongoing hostage negotiations and, notably, was reportedly overseeing the Shin Bet’s role in the “Qatargate” investigation.
Bar and Netanyahu have long been at odds over both security priorities and political tone. Bar’s cautious, professional demeanor often contrasted with Netanyahu’s political instincts and survival strategies.
Their rift deepened post-October 7th, as differing visions emerged over how to handle hostages in Gaza, the role of Qatar in negotiations, and the broader regional implications. Now, with Bar’s ousting and replacement publicly announced just two days ago, some observers are drawing a direct line between the leadership shakeup and the expanding “Qatargate” probe.
The optics are impossible to ignore: Two men in Netanyahu’s inner circle are arrested, the premier himself is summoned, and the man at the helm of the agency leading the investigation is shown the door. Whether this is coincidence, strategic timing, or something more coordinated, it feeds into both prevailing narratives about Netanyahu’s embattled leadership — and the extraordinary lengths to which his adversaries or allies may be willing to go.
Netanyahu is not an easy figure to classify. He is loved and loathed, strategic and self-serving, brilliant and, at times, blatantly divisive. He has governed Israel longer than any other prime minister in history, surviving political coups, international criticism, and a revolving door of rivals. His ability to shift between American conservatism, European liberalism, Israeli pragmatism, and nationalist rhetoric has kept him relevant — and formidable.
But even Netanyahu’s fiercest critics must acknowledge the odd synchronicity of events. The “Qatargate” arrests come just as he was preparing to be questioned himself. The police moved not against unknown bureaucrats, but against his inner circle — his message team, his confidants. This is not just about corruption; it is also about narrative.
And in the age of spin and soundbite, narrative is everything.
What the Netanyahu saga ultimately reveals is something broader: a system struggling to define itself. Is Israel a state of laws, or a state where laws are tools of political struggle? Is the judiciary a neutral guardian, or an active participant in ideological battles? Is justice blind, or does it squint when faced with power?
Benjamin Netanyahu may one day be remembered not just as a prime minister or a defendant, but as the central character in Israel’s confrontation with these questions. Whether he is a hero unfairly targeted or a leader who deserves scrutiny — or both — his story is inseparable from the broader story of Israel’s democracy.
And that story, for now, remains unfinished.
Israel’s main Right-wing political party, which has been one of the country’s two dominant parties for most of its modern history
The Shin Bet — also known as “Shabak” or officially as the Israel Security Agency (ISA) — is Israel’s domestic intelligence and internal security service, roughly equivalent to the FBI in the United States or MI5 in the UK.
This is a very difficult issue. The first thing to remember though is that Bibi is the head of a coalition government that was elected. The power in Israel resides with the judiciary, the media, and the universities. These elites are historically ashkenaz and left wing.
The knesset is the only democratic institution in the country.
The lawfare currently happening is just another iteration of numerous attempts to keep power in the hands of the elites. The manipulation of the supreme court into a self-sustaining entity that is more powerful than the government is another example. The constant attacks on the government make Israel very vulnerable. It is noticeable that the elites don't care. They would rather destroy Israel than give up their power.
I’ve always respected Bibi. He’s the man for the moment and I hope he is able to bring Israel through this horrible war and get the hostages home.