For more than a decade, observers have argued that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has managed the Palestinian conflict in a way that avoids a decisive confrontation with Hamas. The Washington Post notes that Netanyahu appears reluctant to pursue a framework that would lead to the creation of two states, a goal long central to international discussions about the region. In this view, the prime minister keeps the status quo rather than embarking on a path that could disrupt the current balance of power between Gaza and the West Bank.
Analysts cited by the outlet suggest that both Netanyahu’s government and Hamas leaders perceive mutual usefulness in their ongoing arrangement. They contend that the prime minister adopts a strategy that preserves the dominant reality: Hamas governs Gaza while a separate Palestinian leadership holds sway in the West Bank. In practical terms, this split governance structure reduces the urgency of a unified, reciprocal peace process and makes it harder for negotiations to gain traction.
Experts argue that this approach has helped shift the Palestinian issue out of the foreground of political debate in Israel. By concentrating efforts on other threats and regional concerns, including Iran and broader security challenges, Netanyahu can frame progress toward a lasting peace as contingent on external factors rather than on decisive steps with the Palestinian factions. Within this narrative, there is room to claim that negotiations have stalled due to a lack of a credible partner on the Palestinian side, rather than because of any failure within Israeli policy itself.
In this context, the broader political conversation tends to revolve around security calculations, regional alliances, and the long-term implications of maintaining a divided Palestinian territory. The dynamic between Netanyahu’s administration and the leadership in Gaza thus becomes a variable that shapes what is possible in the near term, while the West Bank leadership remains a parallel and competing voice. The overall picture points to a strategic preference for stability in the short term, with the complexity of Palestinian politics posing a continual barrier to a straightforward peace process.
Historically, the rhetoric around Hamas has been charged with calls for its destruction, but the operational reality on the ground has often emphasized containment, governance, and the fragmented political landscape that complicates any overarching resolution. The resulting situation presents a persistent question for policymakers: how to reconcile security concerns with hopes for a durable settlement that acknowledges Palestinian aspirations without compromising Israeli security. The Washington Post’s analysis highlights the tension between pursuing a two-state vision and managing the day-to-day realities that shape both sides’ choices and limits.