US President Donald Trump greets Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the East Room of the White House on February 4, during a visit that underscored their longstanding political alliance.
Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images
When Netanyahu first returned to power in 2009, he promised to eliminate Hamas, but for years he pursued a strategy of containment, avoiding prolonged ground campaigns. Critics accused him of being indecisive and timid. That era ended abruptly on October 7. Within days of the attack, Netanyahu vowed to change the Middle East — and this time, his actions matched his rhetoric.
Even when Israel’s top general, Maj. Gen. Eyal Zamir, warned against the recent takeover of Gaza City or the high-risk strike against Hamas leaders in Qatar, Netanyahu pressed forward. “In every stage of this war, there were voices who hesitated or raised doubts — that is their job,” Netanyahu said earlier this month. “But in the end, it is the cabinet that decides. And we will do what is necessary to secure Israel.”
This shift has left analysts divided. Some say Netanyahu has undergone a genuine transformation, shedding his famously risk-averse style and embracing a bold new doctrine. Others argue that his underlying nature has not changed — that he is still motivated by fear, now focused less on casualties and more on the collapse of his far-right coalition or the fallout of his ongoing corruption trial.
Anshel Pfeffer, author of Bibi: The Turbulent Life and Times of Benjamin Netanyahu, sees continuity beneath the apparent change. “Netanyahu has always feared change and preferred the status quo,” Pfeffer said. “But the status quo now is war, and he has adapted to it. He is still cautious — only now, caution means continuing the fight until he sees a clear victory.”
That calculation is complicated by Netanyahu’s coalition partners, Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who are pressing for the permanent reoccupation of Gaza and threatening to topple the government if Netanyahu considers concessions. Trump’s ceasefire proposal reportedly mentions the Palestinian Authority and gestures toward a future Palestinian state — red lines for both men.
Meanwhile, public patience is fraying. The war’s humanitarian toll has eroded Israel’s international standing and sparked sanctions threats abroad. At home, families of hostages have accused Netanyahu of prioritizing his political survival over their loved ones’ lives. Demonstrations in Tel Aviv and New York have grown louder, demanding a deal that would secure the captives’ release and end the war.
Trump, for his part, has been supportive of Israel’s military campaign but not without limits. In June, he famously ordered Israeli fighter jets to turn back after initially approving a new strike on Iran, signaling that his backing has boundaries. His recent enthusiasm for a ceasefire deal may indicate that Netanyahu will soon face unprecedented US pressure to halt the war — and possibly accept a new status quo that could undercut his strategy of military escalation.
As Netanyahu prepares to walk into the Oval Office, the question is no longer just what deal might be reached but whether he is willing — or politically able — to take it. Is he the same cautious tactician who once avoided major gambles, or the risk-taking leader who now seems determined to make history at any cost?
The answer may shape not only the next stage of the Gaza conflict but Netanyahu’s entire political legacy.