The war against Israeli politicians is beyond absurd.

Hating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his coalition has become a global sport — and let’s stop pretending that it’s actually about policy. It’s about the world’s oldest double standard.

artwork by Future of Jewish

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.

---

Benjamin Netanyahu has been labeled many things: a master tactician, a stubborn ideologue, even — by one tone-deaf cartoonist at The Guardian — an equivalent to Vladimir Putin.

That last one is almost comical. One man clawed his way to power through censorship, political imprisonment, and violence; the other was repeatedly and democratically elected in one of the most politically active countries on Earth. Comparing the two is like comparing a chess grandmaster to a street brawler — both compete, but only one is playing the game with precision and rules.

I want to make something clear before going further: I’m trying to approach this topic from as unbiased a place as possible. I have voted in the last five Israeli elections and never once for Netanyahu’s party, Likud, or any of the parties currently in Netanyahu’s coalition. This isn’t about defending politicians I support; it’s about grappling honestly with the reality of geopolitical decisions that shape the destiny of the Jewish state and, by extension, the Jewish People.

Many have suggested that Netanyahu and his governing coalition have been “without a strategy” since October 7th. This fundamentally misunderstands the man and the environment in which he operates. You don’t win five elections in Israel — a nation where politics is more bloodsport than public service — by simply improvising. Netanyahu has survived, and often thrived, not through luck, but through an unparalleled ability to read the map, anticipate shifts, and adapt his moves accordingly.

This is a man whose intellectual rigor was evident long before his political career began. In 1972, Netanyahu studied architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology — arguably the world’s most demanding academic environment. When the Yom Kippur War broke out in 1973, he arrived in Israel to fight, then returned to MIT to complete both his bachelor’s and master’s degrees. He concurrently studied political science at Harvard University.

Yes, you read that correctly: Netanyahu studied at two elite universities simultaneously.

One of his professors at MIT, Leon B. Groisser, remembered him as “very bright. Organized. Strong. Powerful. He knew what he wanted to do and how to get it done.” Does that sound like someone who drifts without a strategy?

Netanyahu’s strategic instincts are not just academic; they are forged in the crucible of Israel’s history. He has steered the country through the Oslo Accords’ disastrous fallout, the Second Intifada, the Iranian nuclear threat, and shifting U.S. administrations from Clinton to Trump to Biden.

Each crisis required not only tactical responses, but also a long-term vision for survival in an unforgiving neighborhood. Leaders in other democracies might make unpopular decisions without the same intensity of scrutiny; in Israel, every move is debated, dissected, and often demonized both at home and abroad.

Domestically, Netanyahu has demonstrated a political acumen unmatched by any contemporary Israeli figure. In a parliamentary system built on fragile coalitions, where no party ever wins a majority, survival demands constant negotiation, compromise, and timing. He has balanced ultra-Orthodox factions, Far-Right nationalists, centrists, and pragmatists, often simultaneously. It’s easy to criticize the messiness of these alliances from afar, but few appreciate the strategic skill required to prevent a government collapse while still advancing key security and economic policies.

And yet, commentators continue to paint Netanyahu as either paralyzed or reckless, particularly in the context of the ongoing war in Gaza. Much of this criticism rests on a selective reading of events — one that conveniently ignores Hamas’ own duplicity.

Take, for example, the current hostage negotiations. The proposal reportedly on the table today is virtually identical to the one approved by Israel just last month. But Hamas torpedoed those talks by adding new demands.

Now, after mediators reportedly coaxed Hamas back toward the original framework, critics expect Israel to simply return to square one. Why? Why should any sovereign state reward a terrorist organization for bad-faith bargaining? Keeping expired offers open indefinitely only incentivizes the very behavior that prolongs conflict.

The asymmetry doesn’t stop there. Hamas has threatened that Israel’s military operations in Gaza City put hostages “at the same risk” as Hamas fighters. The irony is staggering. For years, Hamas has launched rockets indiscriminately at Israeli population centers. Yet when Israel advances militarily, Hamas suddenly feigns moral high ground.

Critics also claim that Netanyahu is alienating Israel’s “lifeline” in Washington, D.C. But this argument rests on a naïve assumption that everything that matters in diplomacy plays out in front of cameras or through media leaks. Do these critics honestly believe that world leaders broadcast their every conversation, or that the media reports only the unvarnished truth?

Recent history — such as the mainstream media purposefully misleading audiences about President Biden’s obvious cognitive decline — should make anyone skeptical of such claims. Strategic alliances are often maintained quietly, away from the headlines, and Netanyahu has shown time and again that he knows how to cultivate and leverage those relationships when it matters most.

What’s more, the accusation that Netanyahu has “sabotaged” hostage deals — as one former Biden aide recently purported — is equally disingenuous. That word “sabotage” implies malicious intent, when in reality what we are seeing is governance. A democratically elected leader and his cabinet have a responsibility to weigh the terms of any proposed deal against the security and strategic interests of their nation. If those terms don’t serve Israel’s interests, rejecting them isn’t sabotage; it’s leadership.

And to dismiss that calculus because it doesn’t align with the desires of a loud activist minority — whether abroad or within Israel — is to ignore the will of the electorate.

I want to get more specific here, because this is a critical point. Many people vilify Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, two hardline figures in Netanyahu’s Right-wing coalition.

But here’s the reality: Both men were elected in a free and democratic process, and both are representing electorates that overwhelmingly want Israel to achieve a decisive victory over Hamas. So, if Ben-Gvir and Smotrich oppose deals that would ultimately leave Hamas in control of Gaza, why is that controversial? Why should your voice be respected in a democracy, but not the voices of your fellow citizens who voted for politicians you may not necessarily agree with?

And while we’re at it, why does the Israeli Left get a free pass for grossly politicizing the hostages? To exploit the pain of families whose loved ones are in captivity as a political cudgel is not just cynical; it is grotesque, and it cheapens the very human suffering it claims to champion. If we’re going to hold Netanyahu’s coalition under such relentless (almost obsessive) scrutiny, then let’s demand the same level of honest, unflinching conversation about how the Israeli Left has co-opted the suffering of our hostages for political leverage.

Beyond his current coalition, Netanyahu’s strategic depth is most visible in his long-term moves. The Abraham Accords were not a fluke; they were the culmination of years of quiet relationship-building with key Arab states, an acknowledgment that shared interests (especially the threat of a nuclear Iran) could outweigh decades of hostility. That shift fundamentally changed the regional balance of power and opened doors that were previously unimaginable.

It is also important to acknowledge the unique moral and strategic burden that comes with leading Israel. Every decision Netanyahu makes — whether on hostage deals, ceasefires, or military offensives — carries a brutal moral weight. Israel is expected to fight wars as if it were a human-rights NGO, while its enemies operate with barbaric impunity. The same voices that demand restraint will also be the first to condemn Israel when that restraint is interpreted as weakness. It is an impossible standard, and one that few leaders, past or present, have navigated as deftly as Netanyahu.

His critics often argue that he is merely a tactician, not a visionary. But history may judge him differently. His strategic foresight in building regional alliances, maintaining Israel’s technological and economic dominance, and ensuring military superiority over existential threats suggests a longer game than his detractors care to admit.

To be clear, I have no problem debating Israeli policy or hearing criticism of Netanyahu. Healthy democracies necessitate such dialogue, and Israel is no exception. But if we’re going to have those conversations, let’s also have the same level of rigor, passion, and outrage when discussing other leaders around the world.

Where is the round-the-clock condemnation of Xi Jinping for imprisoning millions of Uyghurs? Where is the global moral crusade against Iran’s ayatollahs for hanging women from cranes? Where are the protests for all the civilians being killed in Sudan?

Sure, if you want to bring up the legal cases against Netanyahu, we can do that, but let’s not forget an essential judicial principle: innocent until proven guilty.

And so, we arrive at this sober conclusion: The microscope trained on Netanyahu (and by extension, Israel) is unlike anything faced by any other leader in the world, whether democratically elected or not. That doesn’t sound like “fair criticism.” It sounds like an absurd double standard.

And when that double standard uniquely applies to the world’s only Jewish state, it begins to look less like principled debate and more like the oldest hatred — antisemitism dressed up as political analysis.

---