I keep seeing comments online blaming Benjamin Netanyahu for a wide range of problems, including the rise in antisemitism. The argument often goes something like this: if Israel had a different leader, global hostility toward the country would decline.

Whether Netanyahu has made policy mistakes or served in office for too long is a separate and valid discussion, but it is not the same as linking him directly to the rise of antisemitism.

Public debate about Israel often revolves around personalities. Much of the criticism directed at Israel internationally in recent years has been tied to Netanyahu’s leadership. Supporters of this view argue that his policies, rhetoric, and political alliances have fueled international anger and contributed to a rise in anti-Israel sentiment.

The implication is clear. If Israel were led by someone else, perhaps a more centrist or conciliatory figure, the hostility toward Israel might diminish significantly.

But history suggests a different conclusion. While Israeli leaders certainly shape policy and tone, the global backlash against Israel has persisted across governments of different political stripes. Looking at previous Israeli prime ministers and major events in the conflict reveals that criticism, protests, and sometimes outright antisemitism have emerged regardless of who occupies the prime minister’s office.

One example is the premiership of Naftali Bennett, who led Israel from 2021 to 2022. Bennett was not Netanyahu. He led a diverse coalition government that included parties from across the Israeli political spectrum, including for the first time an Arab party. Some observers hoped that this political shift would change international perceptions of Israel. Yet criticism of Israeli policy and protests abroad continued. The core issues, including settlements, Gaza, and the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict, remained the same, and so did the reactions.

The pattern extends further back. During the leadership of Ehud Olmert, Israel launched military operations in Gaza that triggered global protests and condemnation. The most notable was the Gaza War (2008–2009), also known as Operation Cast Lead. Demonstrations against Israel took place in cities across Europe, North America, and the Middle East. These protests occurred years before Netanyahu returned to power in 2009, indicating that the intensity of global reactions was not tied to his leadership alone.

An even earlier example can be found during the premiership of Ariel Sharon in the early 2000s. The period of the Second Intifada saw some of the most severe international criticism Israel had faced in decades. Sharon was widely condemned in international forums, and protests erupted worldwide. Again, this backlash emerged from the violence and political realities of the conflict itself rather than the specific identity of Israel’s prime minister.

Yet the roots of hostility toward Jews in the region go back even further, long before the modern state of Israel existed. In 1929, the Hebron Massacre saw a Jewish community that had lived in the city for centuries attacked by mobs during riots in British Mandatory Palestine. Sixty-seven Jews were murdered, and the surviving Jewish residents were ultimately forced to flee the city. This violence occurred nearly two decades before Israel’s independence in 1948 and decades before Netanyahu ever entered politics. It is a reminder that tensions and antisemitic violence in the region did not begin with today’s political leadership or even with the existence of the modern Israeli state.

These examples point to a broader structural reality. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most visible and emotionally charged geopolitical disputes in the world. It touches on issues of nationalism, religion, history, and identity. Because of this, developments in the conflict, especially military operations in Gaza or clashes in Jerusalem, often produce intense reactions across the globe. Heavy media coverage, social media amplification, and geopolitical alliances further magnify these responses.

Another important distinction is the line between legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and antisemitism. Many organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League, emphasize that criticism of a government’s actions is a normal part of democratic discourse. However, rhetoric crosses into antisemitism when it targets Jews collectively, denies Israel’s right to exist, or applies standards not used for any other country. In heated political environments, this line can sometimes blur, contributing to the perception that hostility toward Israel and hostility toward Jews are intertwined.

None of this means that leadership is irrelevant. Prime ministers influence policy decisions, diplomatic strategies, and the tone of political debate. Critics argue that Netanyahu’s long tenure and confrontational style have intensified polarization around Israel. That may be true in some contexts. Yet the historical record shows that global backlash toward Israel has repeatedly appeared under very different leaders with very different political approaches.

It also reflects something I have noticed in conversations over the past few years. When discussions about Israel arise, many people speak with strong conviction but limited knowledge of the history of the conflict. Their views are often shaped by powerful images circulating online, whether real, AI-generated, or sometimes even taken from unrelated conflicts. Emotional reactions to these images can quickly form opinions that are not grounded in historical context.

If Israel were led by someone else, whether by a figure like Bennett or another future prime minister, the underlying dynamics of the conflict would remain. As long as the fundamental issues driving the dispute persist, global criticism, protests, and heated debate about Israel are likely to continue.

Perhaps it is human nature to look for a single person or event to blame. Yet antisemitism has existed for centuries and has appeared in many forms across many societies. Expecting it to disappear simply because a different person occupies the prime minister’s office misunderstands both the history of the conflict and the deeper forces that shape it.

Anti-Israel hostility did not begin with Benjamin Netanyahu, and it will not end with him either.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)