Netanyahu will win once more, as a result of in Israel, ‘there is none like him’ | Benjamin Netanyahu | USAEMALL.com

Israel hasn’t talked about the “war” in Gaza for many weeks. After all, there’s a ceasefire in place, is there not? The fact that more than 350 Palestinians, including more than 130 children, have been killed during this so-called “ceasefire” is neither here nor there, as is the fact that Israel killed them. Palestinians die because that is what Palestinians are there to do. There is nothing to discuss.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pardon request, however, is another ball of wax. It is all anyone in Israel seems to be talking about, on every side of the political divide. Nothing better reflects the Netanyahu age (my daughter is 22, and she has barely experienced an Israel not led by Netanyahu). Those enraged by Netanyahu point out that it isn’t even a pardon request. The president of Israel (currently Isaac Herzog, a former head of the opposition to Netanyahu) has the legal authority to pardon “felons”. But felons are people who have been convicted in court of breaking the law. Netanyahu is still on trial.

There has only been one pardon given before conviction (before a trial, actually) in the history of Israel. It was granted to Shin Bet personnel who, in 1984, stormed a bus hijacked by Palestinians and beat two of the hijackers to death. The internal investigation into what came to be known as the Bus 300 affair was rigged by the leadership of Shin Bet. Two years later, an unprecedented deal was reached that not only pardoned the Shin Bet members accused — but never convicted — of the extrajudicial killings, but also allowed Shin Bet leaders who manipulated the investigation into the incident to resign without being indicted. Special security circumstances were cited. Netanyahu is basically asking to invoke those same circumstances.

Then again, he is not merely asking for a pardon. He is asking the president (a largely ceremonial role) to stop the trial in the interest of “national unity” and the “stupendous developments” expected (by Netanyahu) in the Middle East. As far as his devoted supporters are concerned, the trial should never have begun. They have advocated for both immunity from prosecution and a mistrial due to the “weakness” of the indictments he faces. Now, in the middle of a never-ending war (at Netanyahu’s instigation and orchestration), his supporters claim that his presence is necessary full-time at the helm. They describe his trial as a personal vendetta by the Israeli legal system, a result of the “crucial” legal and judicial reform Netanyahu began to implement long before October 7, 2023. These supporters, in parliament and the media, consider the uproar in response to Netanyahu’s request a perfect representation of the hatred of the Israeli “deep state” towards Netanyahu and towards Israel in general. They have responded to Netanyahu’s request with gusto that ranges from Environmental Protection Minister Idit Silman warning that if Herzog does not halt the trial, Donald Trump will be “forced to intervene” against Israel’s judicial establishment, to Netanyahu’s personal attorney, Amit Hadad, insisting that the trial must stop so Netanyahu can “get on with the business of healing the nation” and lead Israel through its current crisis.

Between the two camps are the perennial “compromisers”, those who say at every juncture that truth can only be found in the middle. These people, the notorious Israeli centrists, are calling for a plea bargain or some other grand deal. Most want a political deal that would entail Netanyahu’s departure from politics in return for avoiding conviction. Others don’t care for a solution as much as for the general framing of the issue, calling for a “moderate” approach that would refrain from accusing Netanyahu of corruption but focus instead on his responsibility for the events of October 7, 2023, particularly the dysfunctional behaviour of the Israeli military and other governmental authorities. In all cases, the desirable narrative is one of unity, and unity can only be reached if both “sides” agree to end up with less than 100 percent of what they initially wanted.

The common denominator between these seemingly contrasting approaches is that they are all focused completely on Netanyahu. Take the centrists, for example. Netanyahu issued an unprecedented letter, one essentially calling for a suspension of institutional norms and state law in his favour. The justification was abstract at best — an “interest”, “stupendous developments”, national unity — and a cynical manipulation at worst. One might suppose that Netanyahu’s request would be soundly rejected by sworn advocates of “moderation”. And yet, the minute Netanyahu made the letter public, these centrists immediately accepted it as legitimate and sought to situate their compromise in relation to it.

The same goes for the liberals. The US’s Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner spoke at the biggest demonstration held before the ceasefire went into effect, addressing a crowd of 100,000 people. These protesters saw themselves as vehement opponents of Netanyahu and crystallised their differences with him into one issue — his failure (and lack of desire) to return the hostages. When Kushner mentioned Netanyahu, the crowd booed. For three days — much longer than the Israeli attention span for, say, a documented execution of Palestinians — Israeli media was consumed with the question of the boos. Were they proper? Were they improper because he was PM? Did they prove that the protests against him were based on hatred for him (and, by proxy, for his supporters) alone? Was Netanyahu the epitome of evil who must be booed, decorum be damned? Palestinians were dying by the dozens and hundreds over those days. Israeli infrastructure continued to come undone, as did the Israeli economy. Netanyahu, the response to Netanyahu, the positioning vis-a-vis Netanyahu — this was all liberal Israelis wanted to discuss.

For Netanyahu’s supporters, there is no one but him. He is “their” man, the one who represents them against the elites who feel the country is theirs by right. He alone, through his audacity and cunning, took the fight to Israel’s enemies and brought them to their knees. He is the one who broke the paradigm that put Israel at the mercy of the world. Israel now does as it wishes, and those desires are for Israel alone to articulate. He is one of a kind, and no rule or law should apply to him as he upholds his historic mission and saves the Jewish people. Even if he doesn’t do all of that, say his overt supporters (thus echoing the thoughts of his covert ones), why vote for anyone else? In substance, however, they differ from him hardly at all. No Jewish “opposition” leader has ever articulated a vision that differs from what Netanyahu has already accomplished. They all support Israel’s right to “destroy” Hamas and to attack any other “enemy” at Israel’s complete discretion. They all bar Palestinian Israeli parliamentarians from their “coordination” meetings and talk about a “Zionist” government (read “fully Jewish”) that will replace Netanyahu. They may blame Netanyahu for Israel’s deteriorating international stature, but none of them accepts Israel’s responsibility for the destruction of Gaza, let alone the genocide. The two “opposition” leaders who served as PMs did so for less than 18 months combined. Netanyahu has been PM for nearly two decades. Granted, he’s a bit of a cad and perhaps slightly mad. He still knows his business better than any self-styled heirs.

The conclusion is simple. Netanyahu isn’t just the most effective politician in Israel. He is the only politician in Israel. If an election is called in the coming months and he has not been indicted, expect him to emerge as the leader of the largest party and as PM. Originally, “there is none like Him” refers to God. For Israelis of all political persuasions, there is only Netanyahu.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.