At a time when talk of normalizing ties between Israel and Arab states has started to become taboo again in the regional public domain due to the humanitarian crisis raging in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came out to affirm that he is fulfilling a “historical and spiritual mission” and is “very” committed to the vision of Greater Israel. This was no passing remark or election gimmick, but a stark expression of the essence of his political doctrine and the compass guiding his decisions in war and peace.

These statements raise a fundamental question: Has Netanyahu become a burden on Israel, the region and the US administration, which is cordial to him, including those seeking peace and coexistence with it? Does he truly believe in normalizing relations with his regional neighbors, or does he only want a peace that serves his expansionist ideology?

Does Netanyahu truly believe in normalizing relations with his regional neighbors, or does he only want a peace that serves his expansionist ideology?

The administration of US President Donald Trump has never deviated from the idea of expanding the Abraham Accords to usher in a new era of the Middle East, where everyone coexists peacefully. President Trump views the accords signed between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco as one of the most significant achievements of his first term. From the outset of his second term, he has strived to expand the agreement to include Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon and a number of major Islamic countries. However, is the desire of the US president and Israel’s neighbors to break the decades-long deadlock a common one also shared by Netanyahu? Or is Netanyahu developing other plans under the cover of regional chaos, driven by his euphoria of defeating Iran’s proxies in the region and delivering what he considers a decisive blow to the rival’s nuclear program?

Netanyahu’s statements particularly struck a raw nerve in Egypt and Jordan. While both countries are trying to contain public opinion sympathetic to the Palestinians and are clinging to the peace agreements as a guarantee of security and stability, Netanyahu has declared that he does not recognize their official borders and pursues the vision of Greater Israel, which includes the West Bank and areas of Egypt and Jordan. This prompted official statements from Cairo and Amman, which considered these statements provocative and an unacceptable escalation.

From the first day of the war in Gaza, Egypt and Jordan have warned against any move to displace Palestinians toward them. Considering such a move a threat to their national security, they stood firmly against the displacement plans supported by the Trump administration with its “Middle East Riviera” proposal. However, Netanyahu’s statements transcend displacement plans and invoke a comprehensive war to expand Israel’s geographical territory.

Israel’s neighbors are concerned not just by Netanyahu’s statements, but also due to the facts on the ground, including the massive expansion of settlements in the West Bank and the Golan Heights, verified by UN reports on forced displacement from the West Bank and East Jerusalem issued in October 2024 and June 2025. The concerns also stem from the Israeli Knesset’s passage of a motion on annexing the West Bank last month, and the Israeli government’s rejection of any talk of a two-state solution.

These concerns are grave and pose internal challenges for Arab governments. They reinforce the narrative against the peace agreements and give greater momentum to the discourse, opposing normalization. In light of this reality, any government willing to join the Abraham Accords will find it hard to sway public opinion over the viability of peace, while the Israeli prime minister adopts an expansionist policy at the expense of its neighbors, who have signed peace agreements for decades.

Netanyahu’s statements reinforce the narrative against peace agreements and give greater momentum to the discourse, opposing normalization

All of this leads to the most important question: Has Netanyahu become a burden on everyone, especially Israel itself? The reality is that his statements deeply hurt the collective Arab sentiment and took the conflict back to square one in 1948. In his euphoria over his declared victories, Netanyahu is pulling Israel backwards into a hostile past it had long sought to escape.

Following the Arab rapprochement and Trump administration’s attempts to expand peace agreements with Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, everyone finds themselves in a bind. Instead of resolving the Gaza quagmire, Netanyahu is threatening the foundations of peace agreements with countries that advocate furthering the accords. The Israeli leadership is currently steered by an expansionist, allied with extreme right-wing parties that reject any talk of peace.

Although Israel enjoyed widespread sympathy after the Hamas attack in October 2023, Netanyahu’s policies have undermined this sentiment, considering the famine in Gaza, which even Trump acknowledged, the use of excessive force, and his adherence to the vision of Greater Israel. In doing so, he is portraying Israel’s image as a “pariah state” regionally.

It makes no sense to promote ideas of peace, security, and stability while simultaneously pursuing expansionist policies that impinge on the borders of neighboring countries

The Israeli opposition is weak, fragmented, and incapable of confronting the government. Its failed attempts to initiate a vote of confidence, in turn, strengthened the position of Netanyahu and his allies, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. Israelis face a real quagmire: Instead of strengthening global sympathy, the Netanyahu government continues actions that undermine it, both internationally and regionally. It makes no sense to promote ideas of peace, security, and stability while simultaneously pursuing expansionist policies that impinge on the borders of neighboring countries.

Possible scenarios:

Freeze: Netanyahu continues to remain in power, opens new fronts in Lebanon, Syria, or even Iran, and Israel keeps occupying Gaza. In the meantime, normalization processes froze, which strengthens the Arab opposition. This is the most likely scenario given the weakness of the Israeli opposition and American support.

Fall of the government: Popular pressure ousts Netanyahu, unites the Israeli opposition to form a less confrontational government that is more open to political paths. However, this scenario is currently unthinkable due to internal divisions.

Escalation: Israel takes concrete steps to occupy Gaza, clashes with Iran, and intervenes in Syria and Lebanon, which would eliminate any chance of resuming the peace process and reinforce narratives that reject normalization. This scenario remains possible given Netanyahu’s mindset, which rives Israeli decision-making.

Ultimately, Netanyahu has become a burden to everyone: unable to formulate a plan for ‘the day after’ Gaza, squandering international sympathy, and determined to provoke neighbors and thwart efforts to expand the Abraham Accords, thus being of more service to Israel’s enemies than harming them.