Netanyahu’s Calculation: The War Must Go On
Over the past week, the US administration held another round of negotiations involving Israel and Hamas. Although Israel agreed to the ceasefire agreement, including the release of 125 Palestinian prisoners and ten Israeli hostages by each side, and the immediate distribution of aid via the UN. Hamas has tacitly rejected the proposal despite Israel’s warning of total annihilation. Meanwhile, hungry Gazans continue to endure IDF violence as Israel ramps up its military operation in the Strip to combat remaining Hamas factions. This article examines Netanyahu’s political calculation and explains his insistence on continuing the war.
Regardless of Israel’s approval, the Trump administration bypassed the cabinet of Prime Minister Netanyahu to negotiate with Hamas last month. Consequently, the Israeli government knows that any agreement with that faction must advantage Israel more than Hamas. In US-led talks, Netanyahu insisted that all hostages be returned within seven days of signing. Conversely, Hamas feared that the IDF would immediately focus on destroying it once every hostage left Gaza. Therefore, they sought a phased release in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territory.
Netanyahu is aware that allowing Hamas to remain in the Gaza Strip offers it a chance to regroup and perhaps launch another 7 October-style attack. Thus, the Israeli authorities refused to end hostilities on Hamas’ terms and increased their efforts to securitise Gaza. The prime minister’s rationale for war has consistently been to keep Israel safe from Islamist attacks by omitting Hamas from the regional political sphere altogether. However, the US President’s direct intervention and negotiations with Hamas have complicated this aim, forcing Netanyahu to calibrate each step more carefully.
Netanyahu is no stranger to controversy. Since Hamas abducted Jewish hostages in 2023, Israeli voters have protested, demanding that freeing their loved ones take precedence over the IDF operation in Gaza. Nevertheless, even though Netanyahu promised to secure every hostage’s release, the Israeli military has continued bombing Gaza, creating humanitarian catastrophes in the name of eradicating Hamas forces and risking Israeli lives in Gaza. From Netanyahu’s perspective, hostage safety does not necessarily outweigh national security, but it is important to note that the former is more concrete than the more abstract latter.
Despite public and parliamentary criticism, the prime minister has not halted operations in Gaza. Netanyahu’s decision to prioritise national security over hostage safety has allowed him both to prolong the war against Hamas — at the risk of endangering Israeli captives — and to hold unprecedented executive power as the nation remains in a state of emergency. No stranger to parliamentary gridlock, leading a wartime government may be Netanyahu’s most advantageous political position, since he faces no significant opposition in the Knesset when emphasising military action as proof of his hardline stance on combating terrorism.
In the Gaza Strip, humanitarian crises have been used to pressure Hamas into relinquishing its governance at the expense of innocent Palestinian civilians. In April 2025, the Netanyahu administration refused UN aid for Gaza in favour of a US-backed, Trump-endorsed humanitarian organisation. Israel alleges that UN aid channels are linked to Hamas, while Hamas claims the US-backed group is complicit with Israel and indirectly responsible for the deaths of innocent Palestinians. Although the IDF has not granted international press access to Gaza, local witnesses and international organisations have provided accounts that incriminate Netanyahu’s humanitarian policies.
Furthermore, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza may encourage Palestinians to leave the territory, aligning with Israeli and American interests. In February 2025, Netanyahu’s defence minister publicly suggested a mass exodus of Palestinians to hostile states, shortly after former President Trump proposed a US occupation of the Gaza Strip once the war concludes. Moreover, the Israeli leader may continue engineering humanitarian crises to diminish support for Palestinian statehood and to further undermine Hamas’s ability to regroup and govern. In effect, restricting aid to Palestinian civilians advances Netanyahu’s war on Hamas.
In the broader context of the conflict, Netanyahu has faced numerous legal troubles for nearly a decade. In 2016, Israeli police investigated him for quid pro quo and, a year later, deemed him eligible for criminal prosecution. Subsequently, he has been charged with “bribery” and “fraud”, and remains unconvicted. Earlier today, a court in Tel Aviv heard Netanyahu’s testimony, even as he leads the country on multiple war fronts. Moreover, his wife, Sara, and son, Yair, have also been charged in separate cases and played prominent roles in the prime minister’s legal proceedings.
Importantly, as a member of the Knesset, Netanyahu enjoys “near-total criminal immunity” under a bill passed in December 2024. Hence, as long as he remains in office, which he has for over a decade, he is shielded from prosecution. Former IDF general Israel Ziv has accused him of deliberately prolonging the Israel-Hamas war to avoid imprisonment. This accusation explains the prime minister’s determination to eliminate Hamas from Gaza’s political landscape, even though he likely recognises that such an objective is highly infeasible.
In summary, four key factors explain Netanyahu’s insistence on continuing the war against Hamas. With US involvement, the Israeli leader accepted a ceasefire agreement that Hamas found unacceptable and engineered humanitarian crises in Gaza to weaken the organisation’s governance. Controversially, he prioritised national security over hostage safety, an approach that, while ethically debatable, has consolidated his political power. Lastly, his ongoing corruption trial has further motivated him to continue the conflict, ensuring he remains protected by parliamentary immunity as the head of a wartime emergency government.
