Ahead of New Election, Benjamin Netanyahu Leans on Playbook of Blame and Grievance

As he prepares to contest his 13th parliamentary race, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is once again leaning heavily on a well-worn political strategy centered on victimhood, grievance, and deflection. Despite maintaining power through historic crises, Israel’s longest-serving leader continues to counter allegations that could threaten his political survival by positioning himself as the target of institutional hostility.

Netanyahu has served as prime minister for a total of 18 years across three distinct periods, establishing himself as the most electorally successful politician in the country's history. Throughout this extensive tenure as the head of the right-wing Likud party, he has played a central role in driving the broader Israeli political landscape further to the right.

Yet his prolonged leadership has also coincided with some of the most catastrophic events in modern Israeli history. Netanyahu has overseen what is widely considered the country’s most severe internal security failure, as well as a devastating genocide in Gaza. Despite facing mounting criticism over these events, he has continued to cling to his position at the apex of government.

Rather than accepting institutional accountability, the prime minister’s recent messaging highlights a persistent effort to appeal to populist sentiments. Critics point out that his response to severe administrative and operational shortcomings relies on casting himself not as the head of the governing apparatus, but as an outsider perpetually embattled by hostile forces.

A clear example of this messaging emerged in a recent campaign advertisement overseen by Netanyahu, which portrayed him through the metaphor of a bullied schoolchild. In the clip, the youth is shown being targeted and ostracized by classmates who carry signs reading "anyone but Bibi," using the prime minister's long-standing nickname to present him as the underdog victim of an aggressive establishment.

This narrative of persecution has also dictated the prime minister's reaction to critical media coverage. Following a report published by the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz, which asserted that the United Arab Emirates had provided Netanyahu with an advance warning prior to the Hamas-led assault in 2023, his political apparatus responded aggressively rather than addressing the substance of the reporting.

Instead of engaging in public reflection over the intelligence claims, Netanyahu initiated legal actions and launched counter-accusations. He and his political allies framed the media revelation as an orchestrated attempt at foreign interference designed to manipulate the outcomes of the upcoming national elections.

According to Israeli political psychologist Neta Oren from George Mason University, portraying oneself as a victim is an essential mechanism in the prime minister's enduring strategy. Oren notes that while populist discourse is traditionally deployed from the vantage point of the political opposition, Netanyahu has had to adapt the approach to fit his status as the nation's longest-serving premier.

To resolve the paradox of being both the most powerful leader in the country and an anti-establishment crusader, Netanyahu routinely directs blame toward unseen institutional forces. Oren explains that he frequently attributes policy and military failures to the "deep state," framing himself and his core supporters as collective victims of entrenched, historic elites.

While this posture carries the inherent risk of making the prime minister appear weak or ineffective in commanding his own government, Oren emphasizes that it remains a potent political weapon. The animosity harbored by his voter base toward traditional elites is strong enough that grievance framing continues to effectively consolidate and retain his political support.

The deflection of responsibility has been particularly prominent regarding the intelligence and operational breakdowns surrounding the October 7, 2023 attacks. Earlier this month, Netanyahu claimed that military and defense officials made a deliberate choice not to awaken him in the initial hours of the assault, asserting that had he been alerted, he would have successfully contained the incursions.

This effort to shift culpability has been mirrored by members of the prime minister's inner circle. His wife, Sara Netanyahu, escalated the rhetoric during an appearance on the pro-government Channel 14, where she cast suspicion on opposition leader and former general Yair Golan. She implied that Golan's immediate decision to drive to the attack zone upon waking meant he must have possessed advance knowledge of the planned assault.

Simultaneously, Netanyahu has engaged in an ideological contest on the political right, competing against his own National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir. The two figures have vied for the legacy and historical narrative of the Irgun, the pre-state far-right Zionist militia that was suppressed and brought under state control after David Ben-Gurion established Israel's first government in 1949.

Both political leaders have staged competing press conferences to commemorate what they describe as the historic oppression of the militia. During the British Mandate era, the Irgun was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian civilians as well as British personnel, yet its memory has become a focal point for right-wing grievance against the traditional founding establishment.

Such political methods align closely with tactics utilized by right-wing populist figures across the globe, including former United States President Donald Trump, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. These leaders similarly cultivate strong alliances with segments of the public that feel marginalized by state institutions while attempting to distance themselves from controversies.

However, Netanyahu’s specific brand of anti-establishment victimhood predates many of his international counterparts, extending back to the period surrounding the 1995 assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. At that time, Netanyahu famously challenged the legitimacy of his political opponents by claiming that Israel’s political left had forgotten the meaning of Jewish identity.

Ultimately, analysts observe that Netanyahu’s populism remains distinctly calibrated for the domestic Israeli political arena. By continually anchoring his political rhetoric in shared concepts of Zionist identity and targeting deep-seated resentments, he seeks to mobilize his loyal base and maintain his hold on power once again.