Political Leadership and Crises

Overview of Contemporary Leadership

Political leadership on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides has entered a period of prolonged crisis. Institutions exist, elections are held at least on the Israeli side, and formal structures remain in place, but legitimacy, accountability, and the ability to deliver security or progress are widely questioned. This chapter focuses on the major leaders, factions, and institutional deadlocks that shape current developments, and on how leadership crises feed into cycles of violence and diplomatic paralysis.

Israeli Political Leadership Today

In Israel, the dominant figure in recent years has been Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud party and the country’s longest-serving prime minister. His career illustrates the central features of contemporary Israeli politics: fragmentation into many parties, reliance on unstable coalitions, the growing influence of religious and nationalist factions, and the intertwining of security policy with personal political survival.

Netanyahu has built his power on a right leaning bloc that includes ultra Orthodox parties and, in recent years, far right religious nationalist parties. These smaller partners often hold disproportionate influence because his governments depend on their votes in the Knesset. In practice, this has pushed policy on issues such as settlements, judicial reform, and the conflict with the Palestinians further to the right than the overall Israeli public opinion might otherwise dictate.

Opposing Netanyahu are a range of centrist, liberal, and left parties, such as Yesh Atid, National Unity, Labor, and Meretz, along with some Arab led parties. These groups are internally divided on questions like the economy, religion and state, and security, and they also compete for similar voters. Their inability to cooperate consistently has allowed Netanyahu to return to power multiple times, even when he has been personally unpopular.

Fragmentation and Coalition Instability in Israel

Israel uses a proportional representation system in which parties receive Knesset seats according to their share of the national vote. As a result, no single party has won an outright majority for decades. Governments are built from coalitions that must bridge ideological divides between secular and religious, nationalist and centrist, Jewish and Arab parties.

In recent years, this system has produced a series of inconclusive elections and fragile coalitions. Between 2019 and 2022, Israel held multiple elections because parties were unable to form lasting governments. One short lived coalition even brought together right wing, centrist, left wing, and an Arab Islamist party in a single government, largely united only by the goal of removing Netanyahu.

This chronic instability creates incentives to prioritize short term partisan gains over long term policy planning. Political leaders may avoid controversial compromises with Palestinians, neighboring states, or domestic rivals if such moves risk collapsing their coalition. Security decisions, such as military operations or tolerance for settlement expansion, can become entangled with coalition management and electoral calculations.

Netanyahu’s Legal Troubles and Governance

Netanyahu has been under indictment for corruption related charges, including bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. He denies the accusations and portrays the investigations as politically motivated. Regardless of the ultimate legal outcome, the trials have had significant political implications.

Critics argue that Netanyahu has sought to reshape institutions such as the judiciary, law enforcement, and the media in ways that protect him from legal and political consequences. Supporters claim that powerful elites are using legal tools to overturn the will of the voters. This conflict over the justice system culminated in a controversial judicial overhaul plan, which triggered some of the largest protests in Israeli history and a deep rift between different segments of Israeli society, including within the military reserves.

The combination of a long serving leader under criminal indictment, mass protests over institutional reforms, and intense polarization has raised questions about democratic resilience in Israel. For Palestinians and international observers, these internal dynamics affect the credibility of Israeli commitments in any negotiation and shape the likelihood that the government will prioritize conflict resolution over domestic political battles.

Palestinian Leadership Structures

On the Palestinian side, political leadership is divided institutionally and geographically. The two main centers of power are the Palestinian Authority, often abbreviated as PA, which is dominated by the Fatah movement and based in parts of the West Bank, and Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip. There are also smaller factions and independent figures, but they have limited influence compared with these two dominant organizations.

The Palestinian Authority was created in the context of earlier peace processes and is headed by a president and a government that exercises limited self rule under occupation in certain areas. Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, has served as president for many years, well beyond his original electoral mandate, because national level elections have not been held. The Palestinian Legislative Council has been largely inactive, which weakens checks and balances.

Hamas, regarded as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, the European Union, and others, has its own political bureau and a military wing. It maintains social, religious, and security control within Gaza, even under blockade and repeated wars. Its leadership is partly inside Gaza and partly in exile in other countries, which complicates internal cohesion and decision making.

Fatah–Hamas Split and Its Consequences

The rivalry between Fatah and Hamas is one of the central crises in Palestinian politics. After Hamas won parliamentary elections in 2006 and violent clashes followed, the two movements effectively split control, with Fatah dominant in the West Bank and Hamas entrenched in Gaza. Repeated efforts at reconciliation have produced agreements on paper, but they have rarely been implemented.

This division has several consequences. It weakens the Palestinian negotiating position internationally, because no single leadership can credibly claim to represent all Palestinians or to control all armed groups. It also undermines internal legitimacy, since each side accuses the other of repression, corruption, or collaboration with external powers. Ordinary Palestinians often view both leaderships as unable or unwilling to deliver either effective governance or a clear path toward ending occupation.

At times, the Fatah–Hamas rivalry shapes the timing and scale of violence and ceasefires. Each side watches the other’s popularity and may take or avoid certain actions for domestic political reasons, such as showing resistance, securing prisoner releases, or attracting international support. This dynamic complicates any attempt to create unified Palestinian institutions that could participate in a comprehensive political settlement.

Leadership Legitimacy and the Absence of Elections

Both Israeli and Palestinian politics face crises of legitimacy, but they take different forms. In Israel, elections are held regularly, and governments can be voted out, but many citizens feel that systemic problems such as corruption, inequality, and the occupation remain unaddressed regardless of which coalition is in power. This produces voter fatigue and cynicism about whether leaders are willing to make the compromises needed for peace.

Among Palestinians, the problem is more directly about the absence or irregularity of elections. Presidential and legislative terms have expired without new nationwide votes, partly due to practical obstacles under occupation and partly due to fears within the leaderships that they might lose power. In Gaza, the authoritarian grip of Hamas has made open competition risky. In the West Bank, the PA leadership has postponed elections over disagreements about participation from East Jerusalem and concerns over Hamas gains.

The result is a generation of young Palestinians who have grown up without meaningful national elections, and who therefore view the existing leadership as unresponsive and out of touch. Some turn away from formal politics toward grassroots activism, local initiatives, or armed groups that are not directly controlled by established factions. Others disengage completely from politics, focusing on survival under challenging conditions.

Regional and International Actors as Power Brokers

Leadership crises on both sides are shaped by outside powers. For Israel, the United States is a key ally and often a decisive voice in moments of political or military crisis. American administrations have sometimes backed Israeli leaders at crucial moments, for example with diplomatic cover in international forums or military aid, and have at times applied pressure over specific policies. Israeli politicians balance the desire to maintain this strategic relationship with domestic demands and coalition constraints.

Palestinian leaders depend heavily on financial, diplomatic, and political support from foreign states and organizations. The PA receives funding from the European Union, Arab states, and others, and it coordinates security with Israel under international expectations. Hamas has relied on backing from countries such as Qatar and has had varying relationships with Iran, Turkey, and other regional actors. These external links provide resources but also expose Palestinian politics to external agendas and rivalries.

During acute crises, such as escalations in Gaza or crackdowns in the West Bank, regional mediators like Egypt, Qatar, and Jordan often step in to negotiate ceasefires, prisoner exchanges, or de escalation measures. The success of such mediation depends not only on the local leaders, but also on the interests and leverage of these regional powers. This reinforces a pattern where decisive moments in the conflict are not only about Israeli and Palestinian decisions, but about a wider web of political relationships.

Crises of Governance and Public Trust

Beyond formal politics, both societies face deep questions about governance and public trust. In Israel, debates over the role of religion in public life, the rights of minorities, and the balance between security and civil liberties have become more intense. The judicial overhaul crisis highlighted fears among many Israelis that checks on executive power could be weakened. At the same time, some segments of society, especially among the religious nationalist camp, feel that courts and elites impede the majority’s will.

Among Palestinians, complaints about governance often center on corruption, lack of transparency, and heavy handed security practices by the PA and Hamas alike. Economic hardship, restrictions on movement, and repeated rounds of violence add to popular frustration. When leaders are seen as benefiting from international aid, privileges, or coordination with foreign powers without delivering national goals, trust erodes further.

These crises of trust matter because they determine how willing societies are to follow their leaders into new peace initiatives or compromises, or conversely, to support continued confrontation. Leaders who are weak at home, or who fear being labeled as traitors or collaborators, have less room to maneuver in negotiations. They may find it politically safer to maintain the status quo, even if it is costly and unstable.

War, Escalation, and Leadership Calculations

In periods of escalation, political survival and military decisions intertwine. Israeli leaders may face pressure to respond forcefully to attacks in order to maintain deterrence and satisfy public expectations of security. Palestinian leaders, particularly armed groups, may choose to use violence to shift attention, bolster their standing, or force external actors to engage.

Crucially, internal crises on one side can influence calculations on the other. For example, a leader under domestic pressure might be perceived as either too distracted to respond effectively or, conversely, eager to show strength through military action. Armed groups might test boundaries when they believe their opponent is divided or focused on internal disputes.

These dynamics make de escalation fragile. Even when ceasefires are negotiated, each side worries about domestic perceptions. Leaders must consider not only whether they can reach an agreement with the other side, but whether they can defend that agreement at home against rivals who may accuse them of weakness or betrayal.

Leadership Succession and Uncertainty

A key long term issue is leadership succession. Netanyahu’s dominance raises questions about what Israeli politics will look like after he leaves the stage, voluntarily or otherwise. Potential successors within the right, center, and security establishment position themselves, but it is unclear whether a post Netanyahu era would bring major policy shifts on the Palestinian question or simply new faces pursuing similar lines.

On the Palestinian side, the question of who will succeed Mahmoud Abbas is particularly uncertain. There is no clear constitutional mechanism that all factions accept, and multiple figures within Fatah, the security services, and other groups may compete. Hamas also faces its own succession questions, as leaders in Gaza and in exile balance internal factions and external sponsors.

This uncertainty can be destabilizing. International actors, Israel, and Palestinian factions all speculate about possible scenarios, ranging from orderly transitions to internal clashes. The lack of a widely accepted plan for succession increases the risk that a sudden change in leadership could trigger a power struggle, fragmentation, or shifts in strategy that are difficult to predict.

How Leadership Crises Shape the Possibility of Change

The current pattern of leadership and crises tends to reinforce inertia. On the Israeli side, coalitions that include strong nationalist and religious elements have little incentive to make far reaching concessions, and centrist or left alternatives struggle to unite. On the Palestinian side, divided and unpopular leaderships have limited capacity to enforce agreements or undertake difficult compromises, even if they wished to.

At the same time, political systems under strain can sometimes produce unexpected openings. Mass protests, generational shifts, regional realignments, or major shocks in the conflict can create pressure for new approaches and new leaders. Whether such change would lead to renewed efforts at conflict resolution or to deeper confrontation is not predetermined.

Understanding political leadership and crises today means recognizing that the conflict is not driven only by abstract historical forces or immutable hatreds. It is also shaped by specific individuals, institutions, and calculations, each operating within fragile and contested systems. As developments continue, the ability of these leaders and systems to adapt, reform, or be replaced will be a major factor in any future trajectory of the conflict.