+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Five reasons why voting for Netanyahu was a rational choice for Jewish Israelis

Yes, Netanyahu is facing corruption probes and is practically annexing the West Bank. But for many Jewish Israelis, he has also provided relative security, a better economy, and growing international legitimacy — which makes the unknown alternative much worse.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara address their supporters as the results of the Israeli general elections are announced, at the party headquarters in Tel Aviv, on April 09, 2019. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara address their supporters as the results of the Israeli general elections are announced, at the party headquarters in Tel Aviv, on April 09, 2019. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

Benjamin Netanyahu won his fifth election campaign Tuesday, making him Israel’s longest-serving prime minister. Most Israeli citizens, and an overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis, prefer to continue with the exact same policies that the Likud has put forward over the past decade. These voters rejected most of the far-right, fundamentalist parties that call for formal annexation, turned the Zionist left into an insignificant minority in the Knesset, and kept Netanyahu in power, despite the several political corruption charges he is facing.

Why did they do that? Why do people vote for someone who proudly stands for hatred and racism? For a leader who proliferates apartheid policies and occupation as he moves forward with partial annexation, and repeatedly attacks democratic institutions such as the courts, the free press and civil society? Why condone political corruption?

In fact, there are quite a few good reasons why. This is not an attempt to justify Netanyahu’s victory or policies, but rather to offer an analysis of the considerations Jewish Israelis are likely taking into account when they interpret their political realities and perceive the risks they face.

1. Security: The numbers tell the entire story. According to B’Tselem, between the start of the Second Intifada in late 2000 and the end of the 2009 war in Gaza, 1,072 Israelis were killed by Palestinians, while 6,303 Palestinians were killed by Israelis. Shortly after the 2009 Gaza War ended, Netanyahu took office. In the ten years since, 195 Israelis were killed by Palestinians, and 3,485 Palestinians were killed by Israelis, predominantly during Israel’s 2014 assault on in Gaza.

Over the past decade, there were no wars with Lebanon, the Syrian civil war did not filter through the Israeli border, and Israeli attacks on Iranian targets in Syria went generally unanswered. Netanyahu has been able to manage the occupation and the siege in Gaza, as well as the Syrian-Iranian front, in a way that costs far less Israeli lives than in the previous decade, which Israelis remember well. In the early 2000s, Israeli civilians were confronted with the consequences of occupation inside Israel, through suicide attacks and rocket fire. Under Netanyahu, the occupation goes mostly unnoticed by Jewish Israelis, and whatever toll is takes is mainly on settlers in the occupied territories. Israelis are well aware of that, and they appreciate this relatively increased sense of security.

Palestinians cross the Qalandiya checkpoint, outside of the West Bank city of Ramallah, as they head to Al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem's Old City on June 9, 2017 (Photo by Flash90).

Palestinians cross the Qalandiya checkpoint, outside of the West Bank city of Ramallah, as they head to Al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem’s Old City on June 9, 2017 (Photo by Flash90).

2. Economy: Again, let’s talk numbers. Over the past 10 years of Likud rule, the basic minimum wage in Israel has gone up by more than 45 percent. True, this is thanks to unions and pressure from the left, rather than Netanyahu’s overall neo-liberal economic policies. But from the perspective of an average Israeli earning minimum pay, it’s easy to attribute this change to Netanyahu. Meanwhile, unemployment is at its lowest point in decades, inequality has been declining for two years in a row, and GDP growth is almost 30 percent higher than the OECD average.

Yes, there are still many downsides. As housing prices soar, it is becoming nearly impossible to buy an apartment in Israel, which also has the highest poverty rate and among the widest social gaps of any OECD country. The percentage of workers living in poverty, unable to make ends meet, is on the rise, and civilian spending and investment in services is at a ridiculous low. What more, public transportation, the education system and healthcare are in crisis.

But people also see economic crises and austerity in other countries, and they feel a sense of relief that Israel has been spared these hardships. In addition, the two communities most severely affected by poverty are Palestinian citizens of Israel (Palestinians in the occupied territories aren’t even counted in official statistics), and the ultra-Orthodox. Both communities vote for their own sectorial parties (the latter consistently vow their support for Netanyahu), and are often ignored by the rest of Israeli society. As Netanyahu once put it, “not considering the Arabs and the ultra-Orthodox – we’re doing great.” Israel also scores extremely high on the World Happiness Index, year after year.

3. Foreign relations: Probably Netanyahu’s favorite claim to fame is the global network of alliances he has developed; his strong ties with leaders from India’s Modi to Brazil’s Bolsonaro, his ability to disrupt the EU from within and cripple its stance on the occupation by enlisting Eastern European authoritarian rulers like Hungary’s Orban, the gradual normalization with Arab states, from Oman to Saudi Arabia, and of course – his close friendship with Putin and Trump. In the lead up to Election Day, both leaders bestowed Netanyahu with long-awaited “gifts,” as statements of support for his fifth bid for office.

Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during his welcome ceremony at Ben Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv on March 31, 2019. (Noam Revkin Fenton/Flash90)

Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during his welcome ceremony at Ben Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv on March 31, 2019. (Noam Revkin Fenton/Flash90)

Add to that Netanyahu’s role in the destruction of the Iran nuclear deal, in embassies moving to Jerusalem, in a growing legitimacy around the world for Netanyahu’s quasi-authoritarian style of government, and the Eurovision contest coming to Tel Aviv after a record 4.1 million tourist count in 2018, and you can really start to get the picture. Israelis are surely impressed.

It’s important to stress that all of this comes at a time when Israel continues to commit war crimes in the occupied territories, kills hundreds of unarmed protestors in Gaza, prolongs the brutal siege there, moves ahead with gradual annexation in the West Bank, passes the Jewish Nation-State Law and discriminates against its own Palestinian citizens, and makes no effort whatsoever to move toward peace. The old argument, according to which only peace will offer security and international legitimacy, has gone with the wind.

4. Fear: One might argue that fear has no room in a list of rational reasons to support Netanyahu, but fear is a powerful sentiment, and a serious impetus for political decision-making. In the local context, some of it is irrational. For example, Netanyahu’s constant demonizing of Palestinian citizens in Israel, his delegitimization of the left, the media and the criminal justice system, and his depiction of Iran and the Iran deal as imminent, existential threats to Israel are based on lies. They propagate racism, local and global anti-Muslim sentiment, and fear-mongering.



However, there is merit to Netanyahu identifying the dangers that Israel faces — whether real or imagined — in a region that has been severely destabilized since 2011. Even more so, the fear among Jewish Israelis, that either a two-state or one-state solution (or anything in between) would mean relinquishing at least some degree of Jewish power, privilege and supremacy is quite justified. True equality for everyone living between the Jordan River and the sea would probably involve a complete overhaul of the current regime, which would elicit deep divisions among Jewish Israelis. Peace would require that Israel pay a price. The status quo, however, does not. Sticking with what we have out of fear of the unknown is, therefore, a rational choice.

5. Lack of an alternative: Looking at the recent elections, very few parties offered anything significantly different from Netanyahu on the issues mentioned above. Except for Meretz, Hadash and the Arab parties (which were all demonized by Netanyahu and not defended by his challenger, Gantz), nobody was talking about sustainable peace, or any sort of resolution to “the conflict,” namely the occupation, apartheid and siege. Very little was proposed in terms of an alternative financial, social, or diplomatic vision.

So when people enjoy relative security, a booming economy, international legitimacy — and all at no cost — who cares if the prime minister allegedly received illegal gifts from a friend, or is slightly rewriting the history of the Holocaust?

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. brightdark

      This was great. Thank you!

      Reply to Comment
    2. Matthias Einmahl

      Good and sober analysis.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Ben

      Peace would require that Israel pay a price. The status quo, however, does not. . . relative security, a booming economy, international legitimacy — and all at no cost”

      The Trump administration will not be around forever. Talented Americans and others are rising in opposition. Be mindful of what you describe as “rational” and “no cost.” Costs have a way of adding up, festering and coming back to bite. Economists always ignore “externalities”—until they can’t any longer.

      Shir Hever:


      ‘Hever concludes that ‘(e)ven at the cost of a huge economic burden, certain groups in Israel are committed to preserving the sharply etched hierarchy that distinguishes between dominators and dominated, between citizens and subjects, between occupier and occupied. This hierarchy awards social capital to Jews over non-Jews, and is one explanation why the majority of the Israeli public supports the continuation of the occupation, even to the detriment of its standard of living’ (p. 187). This is an important point to make, and one that many critical analyses of Israel’s occupation ignore. Unfortunately, however, while Hever insists on the theoretical importance of explaining this problematic, he either sidesteps the political implications of his analysis, i.e. that the strength of Zionism amongst Jewish-Israelis will prevent peace and justice; or he has concluded that changing Jewish-Israeli opinion is unlikely and thus the international community (defined as governments, civil society and social movements) has to force Israel to change (p. 199).

      In his final chapter, Hever suggests that while the ‘two-state solution’ is not impossible (he stresses that it is up to Palestinians to choose and does not wish to ignore or dismiss those who yearn for it), it is now unlikely and that deadlock between Israel and the Palestinians will continue over the key issues of borders, the settlements, East Jerusalem and the refugees (see also Hilal, 2007). He thus weighs up two ‘conflict scenarios’: a pessimistic one where the violence escalates and draws other regional players into the confrontation, and an optimistic one where a non-violent civil rights movement of Palestinians and their supporters leads to a single democratic, binational state. The latter, he argues, requires a ‘different type of struggle’ exemplified by groups such as the global Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions movement and the International Solidarity Movement which advocate non-violent resistance (pp. 198–201).’

      Reply to Comment
      • Tommy Goldberg

        Wasting up to four of what should be a person’s happiest and most productive years (three in the army, one to “decompress”) seems like a price to me, but okay.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ben

          Ah, but Israeli army troops are quasi-objects of worship and veneration among the Jewish populace, and army service is the indispensable portal to job opportunities, social status, networking. In general, serving in the army is NOT hard for a young man. Being a conscientious objector is very hard. Army service is getting less attractive, true, and rates of draft avoidance by the best and the brightest are climbing, as young men and women increasingly ask why they should risk their lives to serve as occupiers and security state police in the service of exacting unending military control over another people and serving as babysitters and caretakers of incredibly spoiled brat settlers, but this is relative to the still general trend of worship of the military in one of the most militaristic societies on Earth.

          Reply to Comment
        • Lewis from Afula

          Tommy’s statistics are already out of date.
          Israeli men now serve 2 years and 8 months in the army. In another few years, it will go down to 2.5 years. In a decade or so, the service will be transformed into a professional army. Israel’s population growth is so dramtic, that the traditional army stint is now being slowly phased out.

          Reply to Comment
      • itshak Gordine

        I would like to know what would make you happy if Israel had to pay a “high price”? Do you have such hatred for this modern and pleasant country? Why? It seems very suspicious to me ..

        Reply to Comment
        • Ben

          Halevy, any number of +972 writers have talked about how nothing will change until the cost that Israelis pay for the occupation changes. including Haggai Matar, above.
          The reason price analysis makes no sense to you, the reason for your striking denseness about this subject, is that for you prices only matter for Jews, and prices non-Jews (such as the Palestinians) pay is something you could not care less about. It doesn’t even *occur* to you. You are like a member of the Corleone or Capone family saying, “look what a modern and pleasant family we have here, it seems very suspicious to me that this Elliot Ness and these G-men and the Chicago police are so concerned about the price that other people pay as a consequence of our activities. What’s it to them? I don’t get it. Why should the price the Corleone family pay be increased? I am suspicious of the motives of these people who see the need to have us pay a higher price.”
          Really, your obtuseness on these things is just very striking.

          Reply to Comment
    4. Tommy Goldberg

      “voters […] turned the Zionist left into an insignificant minority”

      This, too, makes sense. The inherent contradiction of wanting to be both Zionist and left is no longer lost on Israelis.

      (But while I and many here question that dwindling bloc’s leftist bona fides, most mainstream Israelis appear to be concerned with whether those not on the right are sufficiently Zionist. This, of course, is the reason why both Herzog last time and Gantz this time went to great lengths to conjure up meaningless terms such as “Zionist Union” and “Blue and White” while distancing themselves from all things Arab.)

      The lesson here is that a Zionist left is never coming back. If there is any hope for an Israeli left, it is in human rights, equality and intersectionality. As Dick Cheney put it, that will be a long, hard slog.

      Reply to Comment