Netanyahu’s Political Tactics Contrast Sharply With Bush’s Democratic Legacy
On January 20, 1993, George H. W. Bush left a handwritten note for his successor Bill Clinton, wishing him success and emphasizing that the new leader’s success was the nation’s success. This act symbolized democratic grace and respect for political transition. In stark contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long treated political defeat as a form of dispossession and views opponents as enemies to be delegitimized.
When Naftali Bennett succeeded Netanyahu in 2021, he expected a thorough handover of responsibilities amid ongoing security threats from Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Instead, Netanyahu gave him only a brief 30-minute meeting, shared minimal information, and sought to maintain privileges such as living in the prime minister’s residence and state-funded benefits for his wife’s car. Netanyahu also warned Bennett that he would unleash "all heavy artillery" against him politically if he continued his course, a threat realized through a sophisticated social media smear campaign.
Today, Netanyahu’s political attacks target former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eizenkot, who is seen as Netanyahu’s most serious electoral rival. Despite Eizenkot’s four decades of military service and personal losses during the Gaza conflict, Netanyahu’s campaign portrays him as dangerous and illegitimate, criticizing his willingness to form coalitions including Arab parties. This smear campaign aims to make Eizenkot’s potential leadership appear unacceptable.
Amid rising threats against Eizenkot, his request for armed state security was denied by the Shin Bet, which only offered intelligence support. This decision is striking given Israel’s history, notably the failure to protect Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 amid intense incitement led by a young Netanyahu. Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s son Yair, living in Miami and not serving in the military, receives extensive Shin Bet protection funded by Israeli taxpayers. The Netanyahu family also secured lifelong or extended security arrangements approved by the cabinet.
The article argues that Israel’s democracy depends on leaders recognizing that the state and government are distinct, and that political opponents deserve protection regardless of their threat to the incumbent. Netanyahu’s judicial reform efforts and political conduct reflect a non-liberal, anti-democratic view that the elected government should be nearly unlimited and synonymous with the state itself. The contrast between Bush’s respect for democratic transition and Netanyahu’s approach highlights a broader crisis in Israeli political culture and governance.
The piece concludes with an ironic observation that although Netanyahu has American ties and speaks fluent American English, his behavior contradicts the democratic values exemplified by Bush. It also notes that Netanyahu and Donald Trump share similar attitudes toward political transitions, which diverge sharply from Bush’s legacy. Both Israel and the U.S. urgently need a return to past standards where a leader’s success truly reflected the nation’s success.
