In the shadow of the ongoing conflict in Gaza, a deeper and more ideological struggle shapes the Middle East. This struggle grows from a vision that stretches beyond Gaza or the West Bank. It reaches into neighboring Arab nations and challenges the foundations of international diplomacy.

A powerful faction of extremist Israeli Jews—many of them settlers in illegal outposts—pushes this vision. They imagine an Israel stretching into the Nile Delta of Egypt, across the Arabian Peninsula, and into parts of Syria and Iraq. They demand an undivided Jerusalem as the capital. This doctrine directly rejects the “Land for Peace” principle that guided decades of peace talks. As a result, it creates an almost insurmountable obstacle to a two-state solution.

The Architect: A Profile of Benjamin Netanyahu

To understand the resilience of this position, one must examine the career of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His personal history connects closely to Israel’s militant and diplomatic identity. As a veteran of the elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit, he fought in key operations during the 1960s and 70s. His elder brother, Yonatan, died in the 1976 Entebbe hostage rescue. That tragedy cemented Netanyahu’s image as a leader shaped by sacrifice for Israel’s security.

After studying at MIT, he quickly advanced in diplomacy. At just 34, he became Israel’s Ambassador to the UN. However, he consistently rejected concessions. He opposed the Oslo Accords of the 1990s, a fragile moment of hope. That period ended when Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli extremist who opposed peace with Palestinians.

Netanyahu’s political career also carries a cloud of corruption allegations. Multiple trials suggest he exchanged political favors for positive media coverage and other benefits. This record highlights his survival instincts. He often chooses power sustained by right-wing and settler factions over broader diplomatic compromises.

Shifting Alliances and a Convenient Narrative

Traditionally, many saw Israel as a loyal American outpost. However, that view now faces serious tests. Research shows a complex dynamic where Israel risks even its U.S. relationship to pursue security interests. The recent attack on Hamas leadership in Doha illustrates this willingness to act independently. It also signals a growing distrust toward Arab partners such as Qatar.

Paradoxically, this shift benefits certain Arab monarchies. For them, Israel is not the main threat. Instead, they fear popularly elected Arab governments and the democratization wave of the Arab Spring. An alliance with Israel—and by extension the U.S.—provides protection against instability and Iranian influence. Consequently, it makes former enemies into strange allies.

Here, the “Iranian nuclear narrative” plays a crucial role. For Israel, it justifies extreme security measures. For Arab monarchs, it creates a common enemy. Moreover, it diverts attention from Palestine while legitimizing cooperation with Israel against a Shiite rival.

The Abraham Accords and a Street-Level Disconnect

This realignment culminated in the Abraham Accords. These agreements normalized ties between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, with tacit Saudi support. Governments hailed them as historic breakthroughs. Yet research shows a deep disconnect. Ordinary Arabs continue to reject normalization while the Palestinian struggle remains unresolved.

Critics argue that regimes—not their people—signed these agreements. The deals opened the door to trade and to possible Israeli espionage. Meanwhile, they offered no real gains for Palestinians. In the eyes of many, those who recognized Israel sacrificed sovereignty without reward.

The Palestinian Reality: A Struggle for Existence

Amid these maneuvers, Palestinians face daily struggles for survival. Christians and Muslims alike endure apartheid-like restrictions on movement and legal rights. Many now describe the Israeli military operations in Gaza as “genocide.” They see these attacks as an existential threat aimed at erasing them.

The Palestinian struggle has been stripped to its essence. It is a fight for life, land, and recognition against a powerful military force. This force continues to pursue territorial expansion while leaving no room for a Palestinian state. Deals signed in distant capitals bring neither justice nor peace to those who suffer the most.

Conclusion

The path to peace remains blocked. Expansionist ideology, a leader shaped by war and scandal, and cynical regional realignments dominate the stage. Moreover, these shifts rely on survival politics rather than principle. Until the world addresses the Palestinians’ fundamental right to live freely and with sovereignty—not as an afterthought—the cycle of violence will continue.