There are personal and psychological reasons that cannot be ignored. For Netanyahu, who built his political image as the "irreplaceable man," the "King of Israel," and the only one capable of protecting it, it is difficult to accept the idea of exiting the scene and moving from the position of decision-maker to that of the accused. Power, for him, is no longer just a position; it has become a political shield protecting him from the repercussions of his failures and judicial crises.
Those were the personal reasons, but the objective reasons are more dangerous. The man faces trial within Israel for charges of corruption, bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, in addition to his political and moral responsibility for the October 7 failure and the subsequent demands for investigation and accountability. Furthermore, there is an arrest warrant issued against him by the International Criminal Court, making his international movements fraught with real legal risks. This is why his loss of the premiership is different from the loss of any other political leader; it means losing an important part of his political protective umbrella and entering a phase whose paths or outcomes he may not be able to control. The question here is: will Netanyahu surrender if he fails to form a government?
The answer: I doubt it. It is more likely that he will seek a political and judicial deal that guarantees him an exit with the fewest possible losses. Here, Donald Trump’s role emerges as an ally capable of exerting political pressure on President Isaac Herzog to push him toward granting a presidential pardon in exchange for Netanyahu retiring from political life permanently. But the other question is: will Herzog accept? And will the Israeli opposition agree to pass such a settlement? The matter is not easy; a pardon before a final judicial verdict is a highly sensitive precedent. The relevant legal authorities have previously expressed reservations about Netanyahu's request for a pardon, while Herzog has indicated his preference for exhausting opportunities to reach a judicial settlement first. As for the opposition, it may find itself facing a difficult equation: getting rid of Netanyahu and ending the state of polarization, or rejecting a deal that might appear to grant him an escape from accountability, and I do not believe its acceptance is guaranteed.
Netanyahu's disappearance from political life will not necessarily mean the disappearance of the extreme right-wing approach he helped solidify, but it may open the door to reshaping the Israeli party map and reconsidering the relationship between the state and its judicial and security institutions.
In conclusion, Netanyahu does not fear losing the chair as much as he fears what awaits him outside it. Perhaps this truth summarizes everything: the man who long convinced Israelis that he was irreplaceable now fears that Israelis might discover that he held them captive for 19 years in his world and Sarah's world, and practiced upon them a new kind of dictatorship and individual rule.
