How Netanyahu's Israel is a betrayal of early Zionism - opinion

Israel today is undeniably a strong country. It has massive military power, advanced technology, and resilience born of decades of conflict. And yet Israel is deeply flawed – politically, morally, and strategically. Israel and its people are trapped in a cycle of fear, domination, and recurring war that does not produce security, legitimacy, or hope.

Israel’s state of affairs was foreseen more than a century ago by Ahad Ha’am (Asher Ginzberg), one of the most important Jewish Zionist thinkers. He warned that Jewish sovereignty divorced from Jewish ethics would ultimately undermine itself. He did not oppose power but insisted it must be restrained by moral responsibility. Israel has ignored that warning – and is paying the rising price.

Netanyahu’s political strategy is based on permanent emergency, the normalization of occupation, the reduction of politics to security management, and now the illegal annexation of Palestinian territory.

This contrast is not theoretical. It lies at the heart of Israel’s ongoing crisis.

Ahad Ha’am rejected the idea that Zionism was merely a response to antisemitism or a project of state-building for its own sake. For him, Zionism was a moral experiment. Jewish sovereignty was not the end point but the beginning of a test. “A state,” he wrote, “is not the beginning of redemption, but its test.”

In his 1891 essay “Truth from Eretz Israel,” Ahad Ha’am shattered the myth of an empty land. Like Ze’ev Jabotinsky, he insisted the Arab population of Palestine was real, rooted, and would resist injustice. “The land is not empty; it is inhabited,” he warned, adding that mistreating the local population would destroy the moral legitimacy of the Jewish national project.

That warning has proven painfully accurate. For Ahad Ha’am, Jewish nationalism could only survive if it remained inseparable from universal human values. Power that abandoned ethics would not strengthen Zionism; it would hollow it out.

Netanyahu has explicitly rejected Palestinian sovereignty. In 2015, on the eve of elections, he declared: “There will be no Palestinian state under my watch.” Although he later tried to reframe that statement for international audiences, his policies since 2009 have reflected that position. The refusal to pursue a viable political solution has been central to his leadership – and central to its failure. That trajectory did not produce security. It led directly to October 7, 2023.

Rather than seeing sovereignty as a moral responsibility, Netanyahu treats power as an end in itself. His speeches are saturated with historical trauma and existential fear. At the United Nations in 2012, holding up a cartoon bomb, he proclaimed: “The lesson of history is clear: Appeasement only invites more violence.”

The message is consistent: Restraint is weakness, compromise is danger, and moral reflection is naïve. With this, he has corrupted an entire society.

Under Netanyahu’s leadership, occupation of the West Bank and control over Gaza ceased to be temporary. It has become normalized, bureaucratized, and removed from moral debate. Settlement expansion accelerated, especially over the past two years; Palestinian political horizons disappeared; and the two-state solution was hollowed to the point of possible unviability.

This is what Ahad Ha’am feared. He warned that domination over another people would corrupt the occupier as surely as it would provoke resistance. Israel today is more militarized, more polarized, and more dismissive of ethical critique than ever.

Occupation is not debated as a moral problem; it is managed as a technical and security issue. But October 7 should teach us that this conflict cannot be managed – it must be resolved.

Netanyahu refuses to constructively address the conflict, portraying it as unavoidable. “We are not dealing with peace partners,” he said, using Palestinian hostility to justify permanent control. This logic turns a political conflict into a permanent condition and, according to him, absolves Israel of responsibility for shaping a different future.

In July 2024, the International Court of Justice concluded what many Israelis have avoided acknowledging: Israel’s occupation has become permanent in nature and, therefore, illegal under international law. The Court ruled that Israel is obligated to end the occupation, dismantle settlements, and make reparations – and that other states must not recognize or assist the illegal situation.

Ahad Ha’am would have recognized this as the result of moral abdication, not international bias or antisemitism as claimed in Netanyahu’s typical response.

Nowhere is the bankruptcy of Netanyahu’s approach clearer than in Gaza. Years of blockade, repeated wars, and collective punishment have produced neither deterrence nor security. They produced despair, radicalization, and endless cycles of violence.

Netanyahu has defended this policy. In 2018, he said: “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas.” This revealed a deliberate strategy: maintaining Palestinian division and permanent conflict to avoid political resolution.

Ahad Ha’am rejected this reduction. He believed Judaism’s strength lay in its moral demand. “Judaism is not confined to ritual,” he wrote. “It is a moral worldview.” To abandon that worldview in the name of power was a betrayal of Jewish national revival.

Netanyahu, by contrast, aligned himself with messianic and ethno-nationalist forces that reject universalism. Israel today speaks the language of strength, but steadily loses moral credibility – among citizens, Jews abroad, and allies. That is Netanyahu’s crime against the Jewish people.

Israel’s predicament is often presented as inevitable: a hostile region, an implacable enemy, no alternative but force. Ahad Ha’am rejected fatalism. He believed nations choose their character, and moral failure is not destiny – it is decision.

Netanyahu’s leadership represents a choice: short-term political survival over long-term vision; conflict management over conflict resolution; fear over responsibility. Israel is stronger than ever militarily – and more isolated, divided, and morally exhausted than at any point in its history.

Ahad Ha’am did not oppose Jewish sovereignty. He demanded it be worthy of its name. He understood that power would come – and when it did, it would test whether the Jewish people could govern justly. That test is now being failed.

The contrast between Ahad Ha’am and Netanyahu is not between idealism and realism. It is between moral realism and political cynicism. Ahad Ha’am understood that justice is a strategic asset. Netanyahu treats it as an inconvenience.

Israel does not need another strongman. It needs leadership capable of restoring its moral spine – a leadership that understands that domination is not security, occupation is not destiny, and Jewish power without Jewish ethics is self-defeating.

Ahad Ha’am offered that vision more than a century ago. Netanyahu’s long tenure has shown us, painfully, what happens when it is ignored.