The prospect of Benjamin Netanyahu being forced from office has, for many, come to symbolise the possibility of a political reset in Israel. After years of polarisation, corruption allegations, and the catastrophic handling of war, the idea of a post-Netanyahu era carries an understandable sense of relief. Yet there is a danger in mistaking a change of leadership for a change of reality. Removing one man, even one so central to the current crisis, will mean very little if the structural violence and occupation that define the Israeli–Palestinian conflict remain intact.
The newly announced alliance between Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid reflects a growing consensus within parts of Israeli society that Netanyahu’s leadership has become untenable. Their rhetoric of “change” and “a new chapter” speaks to domestic frustrations: economic strain, political instability, and international isolation. But it is crucial to interrogate what “change” actually means in this context. Both men, despite their differences in tone and style, have historically supported policies that entrench Israeli control over Palestinian territories. A new coalition without a fundamentally different approach risks being little more than a cosmetic shift.
The devastation in Gaza following the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and Israel’s subsequent military response has laid bare the human cost of this conflict. With tens of thousands of Palestinians reported killed and entire communities reduced to rubble, the moral urgency of a political solution has never been clearer. Yet within Israeli political discourse, the conversation too often revolves around security management rather than conflict resolution. The language of deterrence, retaliation, and control continues to dominate, regardless of who occupies the office.
To suggest that Netanyahu’s removal alone would be “wonderful”, as some may perceive it, is to overlook this deeper continuity. His political downfall may indeed weaken the most hardline elements of Israeli governance, but it does not automatically dismantle the policies that sustain occupation, settlement expansion, and systemic inequality. Without a genuine commitment to ending these practices, any new government risks perpetuating the same cycle of violence under a different banner.
A meaningful path forward requires more than electoral manoeuvring; it demands a courageous reckoning with the realities of Palestinian dispossession and the necessity of coexistence. Whether through a two-state framework or another mutually agreed solution, preferably Palestinian sovereignty, the core principle must be equality, dignity, and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians. Anything less is not peace, but merely a pause between conflicts.
If Bennett and Lapid are serious about “changing direction,” they must go beyond opposing Netanyahu’s leadership and confront the policies that have defined it. That means engaging with Palestinian leadership, halting settlement expansion, and recognising that security cannot be achieved through domination. Without such steps, their alliance risks becoming another chapter in a long history of missed opportunities.
The removal of Netanyahu may feel like progress and in some respects, it would be. But without a just and lasting settlement with the Palestinians, it will remain fundamentally incomplete. Real change is not measured by who holds power in Jerusalem, but by whether the lives of those in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel itself are allowed to move beyond fear, violence, and perpetual loss.
