The king of political comebacks. Gil Cohen-Magen/AFP/Getty Images
Even before he became Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, at the age of 43, was already being called “yesterday’s man” by the Israeli media. Just five months after being elected leader of Likud, Israel’s main Right-wing party, interviewers were asking him to his face: “Are you a political failure?”
It was August 1993 and the Labour government led by Yitzhak Rabin had just signed a peace agreement with Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organisation, promising a fresh outlook and a “new Middle East”. Netanyahu, with his grim predictions of bloodshed and Israel’s gradual destruction by the Palestinians’ “salami tactics”, barely made it into the backpages.
But as the Oslo Process descended into chaos, with Palestinians carrying out suicide attacks in Israeli cities and a Jewish settler massacring Muslims at prayer in Hebron, Netanyahu gradually regained his footing in the polls. In November 1995, the assassination of Rabin by a Right-wing extremist caused his popularity to plunge again, as many blamed him for inciting violence. Lagging 25 points behind Labour, many in Likud favoured replacing him as leader, but Netanyahu quashed any opposition. He flew to America, hired a Republican attack-dog strategist, and fought a ferocious campaign depicting himself as the man to bring “a secure peace”. He deployed thousands of volunteers in the streets with signs reading “Netanyahu is good for the Jews”. In six months, he turned his fortunes around, and in May 1996 beat Rabin’s successor with a sliver of the vote.
Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, is invariably described as a political winner. But he has suffered plenty of defeats. He lost power after his disastrous first term in 1999. Then in 2003, he was beaten in the Likud leadership election by Ariel Sharon, whom he had mistakenly taken for an aged caretaker who would easily be swept aside. When he finally regained the leadership in 2006, Likud suffered its worst result in half a century. What marks him as a politician is not his string of victories, but his enduring ability to come back and bury his opponents after everyone has counted him out.
After four decades in public life, at the age of 73, Netanyahu is on the brink of yet another comeback. Tomorrow, he will lead Likud for the 11th time in a parliamentary election, the last four of which ended in a virtual tie between the bloc of parties supporting him and those who refused to serve under a prime minister indicted for fraud and bribery. In June 2021, the opposition parties managed to come together in a bizarre coalition of nationalists, centrists, Left-wingers and conservative-Islamists, cobbled together by columnist and chat-show host Yair Lapid, which finally ejected Netanyahu from the prime minister’s office. But that coalition was never going to last. Sixteen months later, for the fourth time in his career, Netanyahu is once again the leader of the opposition taking on an incumbent: the architect of his most recent downfall, Prime Minister Lapid.
The polls have him just about breaking even, with the pro-Netanyahu bloc on 60 seats, one short of a majority in the 120-seat Knesset. But no one bets on the polls when it comes to Bibi. I began my career as a trainee reporter covering Netanyahu’s first run for prime minister in 1996 and have reported on every campaign of his since. Last week, I went to see one of his last rallies in Maale Adumim, a large suburb-settlement to the east of Jerusalem with 40,000 residents, where Likud won 48% of the vote last year. The turnout was disappointing: no more than 300 people, many of them children. Israelis, no matter where they lean politically, are tired of elections. Netanyahu isn’t.
In 26 years of campaigning, he hasn’t changed. He still strides masterfully across the stage, whipping up a cheering crowd. The carefully calibrated stump speech, its messages pre-tested with focus groups, still sounds like it just occurred to him on the spot. This has been a long campaign — officially four months since the Knesset was dissolved — but for him it began the moment the Bennett-Lapid government was sworn in on 13 June 2021 and another Knesset member had to tap him on the shoulder to remind him to vacate the Prime Minister’s seat on the Knesset floor. He will be the oldest member of the next Knesset but is still brimming with energy.
Any politician running for national office must be equipped with an over-sized ego and the self-belief that makes them think they can take decisions affecting the lives of millions. Netanyahu has an infinite supply of both. He is fueled by a sense of destiny, built up by being the son of a historian, the austere and dogmatic Professor Benzion Netanyahu, who saw the Jewish past, present and future as a never-ending struggle for survival in a bleak antisemitic world.
His opponents fight election campaigns. He is fighting every day of his life for the very existence of the Jewish people. His personal fate and that of the nation are one and he will never give up fighting, just like his father who continued his research almost until his death at 102. If he fails to win a majority tomorrow, he will try again. And again.
Such political irrepressibility is unrivalled by any contemporary politician, except perhaps Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi. Just like Bibi, “Il Cavaliere” (“The Knight”) has won, lost, and come back again despite those pesky Leftists prosecutors trying to pin corruption cases on him. In Netanyahu’s autobiography, there is a telling anecdote of a meeting between him and Berlusconi:
“So, Bibi,” he asked me, “how many television stations do you have?” “Israel has three stations,” I answered.
“No, I mean how many of them work for you?” asked Silvio, who owned Italy’s largest media empire.
“None,” I said. “Actually, all of them work against me.”
“So how can you win elections with both hands tied behind your back?” he asked, bewildered.
“The hard way,” I said.
Berlusconi entered politics at an older age, after accumulating a private fortune and building his own media empire. Not having what Netanyahu has called “my own media” still rankles him. He is convinced that were it not for Israel’s independent-minded press, he would never have lost a single election. After all, if Israelis had a clear view of him, they would have realised how essential his leadership is and how laughable any of his so-called rivals are. It is the media who is the real opposition and who egged on a weak Attorney General to press charges against him. Central to those charges is the claim that he used his position to bribe media owners to change their coverage of him. And central to his defence is the insistence that he was merely trying to level the playing field.
Netanyahu knows what Berlusconi and Donald Trump also understand instinctively. To triumph against the odds and then prepare the way for constant comebacks, winning elections is not enough. You must rebuild the political, social and media landscape in your image. The first stage must be a total revamp of your own party. Netanyahu achieved that by pushing out all his Likud rivals and flooding the membership with fanatical loyalists. Similarly, Trump pushed the GOP to its worst nature while Berlusconi formed his own, tailor-made Forza Italia and People of Freedom parties. As we saw in Britain just last week, politicians like Boris Johnson who fail to remake their parties rarely manage to make comebacks.
At 86, Berlusconi is unlikely to ever make it back into office again, but if it were not for his restructuring of post-war Italian politics, Giorgia Meloni would not be prime minister today. Neither is Trump’s return in 2024 at all certain, but his angry and polarised American politics will remain. And if Netanyahu loses on tomorrow night, his opponent will still be governing a country deeply divided between those who cling to Bibi’s staunchly nationalistic identity of Jewish survivalism, and those who prefer a much vaguer sense of secular Israeli citizenship. Whatever the result, Israel will remain Netanyahu’s for years to come.
Anshel Pfeffer is a senior correspondent for Haaretz and Israel correspondent for The Economist. He is the author of Bibi
The Turbulent Life and Times of Benjamin Netanyahu.
AnshelPfeffer 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI am not a massive fan of taking the law into one’s own hands but this is one of the rare occasions when I think it is not only OK to do it but that it is absolutely the right thing to do. I can see not one single argument for the H of Bishops’ rule on this and many against. So go on, clergy, grow some, break the stupid law, get into your church ..or one of them, as so many clergy are in charge of several…and pray, sit, think, be with God, by yourself, because nothing will do you more good, your family and friends and neighbours and parishioners more good. I would say ‘what are the Bishops thinking ?’ Except that I fear they very often don’t think at all
The Church of England, our national church, should have insisted on remaining open all through the emergency as a point of principle; the government would have certainly acquiesced. After all, with the numbers of people who typically go into churches there would have been no problem with keeping people apart.
But the CoE couldn’t wait to get into full lockdown and this, unfortunately, illustrates the current state of a church which has ceased to believe in itself and does not believe its own message.
Do we look for the Resurrection of the dead, And the life of the world to come, or do we put our faith in social distancing? The CoE has made its decision.
Why should churches be different to anywhere else?
Because one of the functions of the Church is to provide consolation in times of crisis. Although a church building is not an absolute necessity, they are an established part of our social fabric and therefore offer people reassurance. An open church would also demonstrate that the CoE is with us alway, even unto the end of the world.
My concern is not with the article but with the implications of what it reports. These implications have been evident for too long.
The church, by which I mean the Christian faith, is nothing if it’s not supernatural. If it has nothing to say and prove in a time of crisis for the nation, then the doors should stay closed for ever. It is occupying beautiful buildings under false pretences. Unfortunately, what it says to the cameras from archbishops’ and bishops’ kitchens under the circumstances is immaterial, at least for the most part. If it only offers politics in a dog collar, accompanied by limp sermons which can’t be remembered by lunchtime on Sunday, then it most certainly is irrelevant.
One can be accused of being a fundamental Christian, but if one is not fundamental why bother to be a Christian at all? In fact, whatever label we attach to ourselves, if we don’t believe what the scriptures say, if we reason them away according to the diktats of the age, then it is doubtful we were ever Christ’s. What a pointless exercise and what a waste of a career elsewhere because it surely isn’t a calling.
The collective church seems not to really believe its creeds or confessions. It reasons that wine should not be offered at Eucharist to protect communicants from infection ““ as if any germ, bacteria or virus would last for a microsecond in the presence of the Blood of Christ consumed in faith with a tender heart. But then if clergy don’t preach the gospel and don’t really believe, it makes sense to ban the communal cup in favour of the superior nature and power of a pandemic.
At the danger of insulting the Bishops and clergy, there is the very alarming underlying concept (as expressed by Archbishop Welby and also, singing from the same hymn sheet, my local bishop when I protested about this policy) that the church is about people, not buildings. But for some of us, it is the other way round; our current church leadership lets us down sadly with its urge to pursue every modern trend, its adoption of the trendy, the abandonment (it often seems) of grace and faith and spirituality.
But the buildings stand signal as to the holiness of the church, peace, calm, a place to reflect and pray, a long lasting faithful congregation through the ages, that here the spirit has been present in good times and bad. Until now, when the Archbishop ordered the church doors locked against the faithful and retreated to the kitchen.
I am glad to see that Giles, like Marcus Walker and other priests, have not lost faith in the distinctive Christian voice.
‘Lack of confidence’ certainly covers the outward appearance of the C of E’s behaviour in this; but sadly I fear that the root cause lies much deeper, in an institutional lack of faith in its own mission. Too many of the heirarchy give the impression that they are mere administrators in fancy gowns, and their woeful leadership sows despair, not inspiration, within their congregations.
“… it [the church] has lost confidence in its own distinctive values, looking instead to the government to set the moral tone. ….”
What absurdity have we reached! This Prime Minister takes his morality from Ancient Rome – he has no affinity for Judeo-Christian values.
More tellingly, the CofE has lost its faith in God, offering a moral therapeutic deism rather than a call to repent and enter into the righteousness, joy and peace of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World.
Why does this discussion revolve almost exclusively around clergy? What, in the view of most people, are churches there for? To mark life’s great transitional moments, but also, though this may seldom be acknowledged, as a sign of the enduring presence and love of God. There are many people who may value them as a sacred space, somewhere to go and simply be in a space that has perhaps been prayed in for centuries, to experience consciously or unconsciously something of that prayer, to sigh and yearn and weep into that great presence. Churches should remain open for the people. Some may never have prayed, or felt the need to do so before. They need that sacred space. I think we could trust them to respect social distancing, especially if a polite sign at the door reminded them to do so, while also making them feel welcome. They are unlikely to turn up at any one church in droves. Time to get our priorities right.
Why do you HAVE to pray in a church? isn’t God supposed to be everywhere? What about pubs are landlords allowed to drink in the bar, even if they live on the premises? Why should there be separate rules for churches, or a church goers better than us?
Very interesting article.
Since the days of Lewis, Muggeridge and Barclay etc, Christianity has had no theology, meaning or intellect in this nation.
Basically, just collects old batteries for the ecoloons, puts former witches into diosceses , virtue signals for Channel 4 and fills boxes for food banks, not allowed to pray or even talk of Jesus
Anti Semitic supporters, hating Brexit and vilifying Trump. Who at least still has his mum’s bible and has read the Ojd Testament. And turns out to know it better than the Dalai Papa in Rome.
Of course, I feel for the old and lonely who had a connection with their parish church, and Welby’s rush to flee from the scene at the first wave of a white tissue was disgusting dereliction, cowardice and lazy. But they’ve said nothing since Temple, so Asia Bibby and those hounded out of the NHS for praying or wearing a cross know how effete, pathetic and irrelevant the church now is.
Hope it does like the Labour Party. Both long gone as any use.
So the C of E is having a lack of in its ‘values’ and is becoming nothing but a department of the secular state. Awww diddums. The C of E has been a department of state since Henry VIII went all heretic and dragged the Church out of Catholic Christendom. As for its values, I take it the piece actually means ‘Christianity’? You know the C-word other than Covid-19. Again it has not exactly been at the forefront of preaching the Gospel. It has become nothing but a SJW branch of social work. Sadly it looks like the Catholic Church is going down the same road under the Bergoglians, becoming less Christian (yes Catholics are Christians, and the very first), more subordinate to the secular powers, and don’t really believe in God, resurrection, salvation, Hell or even poor old Jesus, but Pachamama and Gaia they absolutely adore. The difference is that there are more Catholics who are still fully Catholic and Catholic clergy (from Cardinals down) beginning to fight back and ensuring the Catholic faithful have access to the Mass and the rosary. In a time of pandemic, where our mortality is in full view, where mankind stands stripped of its overbearing confidence, God begins.
“When bishops retire they get braver.”
Not just bishops! Retired medics like pathologist Dr. John Lee have proved refreshingly candid regarding the current Corona-Crisis. And amen re celebrating services in churches! If the Catholic Mass could be broadcast from the still-damaged Notre Dame cathedral in Paris, why not from, say, St. Paul’s, which famously defied and survived the Blitz?
I’m a Protestant in America. We also seemed to have succumbed in my church to the notion that meeting away from our physical buildings or campus is fine, short term, as we have also done with our public schools and universities. We conduct our lives from home. But not for much longer. The public is restless as cabin fever has taken a wearying toll on our civic life and especially on our personal, family, and work relationships. The state motto of Vermont, “Live Free or Die” is echoing in our collective consciousness, but for Christians there is our Lord’s mandate to, “Go into all the World and preach the Good News.”
We are not sure how much more of this lockdown we can take. Children need to run out and play with their friends in the sunshine and fresh air. The science now tells us the Swedish herd immunity model was best. Patience is a virtue, but so is going back to school and work, to worship services, and in actively reaching out and participating with others in maintaining a free society for ourselves and our children. When it comes right down to, do we allow God or the secular State to tell us what is “essential” activity? How do we, “Live Free or Die”, when going about our normal daily lives is viewed by many as being, dangerous and immoral?
Not to quibble but “Live Free or Die” is the state motto of New Hampshire. Vermont’s is “Freedom and Unity”.
This is beautiful
https://youtu.be/LvHQAVOwEDc
Can the ABC be impeached or something? I mean he is giving Satan a field day.
I joined the CoE when I lived in England — I ventured inside the Anglo-Catholic church across the street and was immediately at home. Back in the States, I became an Episcopalian. My parish and diocese are very liberal, but our priests, deacon, lectors, etc. are at least allowed by our Bishop to conduct Mass in the empty church, and we attend via Zoom.
We do get more attendees via Zoom than we usually had in person, but it’s not really the same. I feel the Spirit more when I say the Daily Office than I do during a Zoom service. And I miss taking communion and being with my fellow parishioners terribly.
I find it hard to believe that the CoE is forbidding priests to enter their church or to conduct services from their church. This is ridiculous! Like closing beaches and arresting surfers, which we are doing here in California.
However, rebellion is stirring. Folks have realized how power-mad and totalitarian our bureaucrats actually are — this has been very educational. When the dust settles and the numbers are added up, there will be a lot of people angry that we have trashed the economy with little to show for it.
Our national religion used to be the C of E, but now it’s the NHS.
If a kitchen is better than a cathedral, then presumably the next step is for the CofE to knock down all its churches. Think of the money they could make selling the land to developers!
Then would they stop begging off us when we have to pay to go into a cathedral?
If the church can’t survive without a building, it’s a very sad and irrelevant church indeed.
Exactly
As a committed Christ-Follower I have been in awe of the way that local church leaders have stepped into the community to serve and to lead. The oft-used anacronym WWJD applies – our church leaders are where it matters right now and – I believe – where they are supposed to be. I absolutely accept that for some the buildings are important but please let’s not squabble about that now…
As a busy full-time worker using all sorts of new online technologies to connect with others I have been struck by a new authenticity of communication that Covid-19 has created: people of all disciplines in their homes, no room for airs & graces, focussed on making a difference and getting stuff DONE. Sweeping away obstacles wherever they can.
Right there in the midst of it all is the church.
Hallelujah
Sadly the subject of this article is very much beside the point.
I don’t think 99.9% of the population will be concerned at all about whether their parish priest is able to access the church or not. What some might be interested in are the attempts of the priest to offer ministry using the online opportunities. For instance the zoom services I participate in are attracting more than the regular congregation. The potential for preaching the Gospel, teaching the Faith, involvement in worship, pastoral care and church growth is enormous as we look to the future.
I also think that rather than moaning about church building lockdown we clergy ( including retired bishops) would be better used in encouraging people to use this crisis as a time of reflection on mortality, our personal relationship with God, and the state of our nation which has lost its way largely because it has turned its back on Him.
I live next door to my church: I miss the bells, the choir,the singing the coffee mornings and Yes mass- and i wish it were open for private whatever, although it does tend to gather in others looking to sleep somewhere, and so on- but it is a very large church- I wonder how and when things will begin again.
However, I do take issue to some extent with the ‘kitchen’ (often the heart of many homes) having enjoyed ordinary bread and wine- in many a small and large kitchen, which gives an ‘ordinariness’ and every-day-ness to the celebration.
But I get the point.