Why Netanyahu's supporters remain loyal to him despite his failures - opinion

For over a decade, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has demonstrated an extraordinary ability to retain the loyalty of his supporters despite profound failures under his leadership. He has been described as Israel’s most successful politician, the greatest political survivor, and the leader of a personality cult.

Millions of Israelis vote for Netanyahu because they genuinely share his political worldview that Israel must be exceptionally strong, distrust the Palestinians, fear Iran, oppose territorial concessions, and regard the Israeli Left as naïve, all legitimate political positions.

The more puzzling question is why personal loyalty to Netanyahu remains so resilient even when events appear to contradict the image of him as Israel’s indispensable protector.

What does Netanyahu offer his followers beyond policy? Perhaps the answer lies in something deeper than politics. He offers psychological security through powerful rewards: security, identity, certainty, conviction, and collective struggle. To reinforce these bonds, he has also used the divisions within Israeli society with remarkable effectiveness, creating a powerful distinction between “us” and “them.”

Understanding these psychological dynamics may help explain Netanyahu’s extraordinary political resilience, and why his most devoted followers remain loyal even when the facts appear increasingly difficult to reconcile with his image.

Netanyahu’s most powerful political appeal has long been security, not merely security as policy but as an emotional promise. Israelis live with a profound awareness of vulnerability shaped by the Holocaust, wars, terrorism, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

Netanyahu has built his political persona around the image of an experienced leader who recognizes dangers and can protect Israelis. During Operation Protective Edge in 2014, he said, “The ultimate responsibility for your security and peace is mine, as prime minister.”

The message is not only about trusting his security policies but more about trusting him with their security. Security is identified not with a government or policy but with Netanyahu himself. The question is no longer whether Netanyahu made mistakes, but who can protect us if not Bibi.

Netanyahu also offers identity. His rhetoric often blurs the distinction between himself, his supporters, and the nation. In October 2025, he told the Knesset: “We are Jews, we are Israelis, we are strong.”

This framing makes opposition to Netanyahu appear to some supporters not just as political disagreement but as opposition to the country and its security. It also taps into longstanding resentment toward Israel’s traditional elites.

Netanyahu has been remarkably effective at turning that resentment into solidarity with himself. Politics shifts from a contest between competing ideas toward an “us versus them” struggle. Once politics becomes an identity conflict, evidence is less powerful.

Another characteristic is Netanyahu’s projection of certainty. In July 2026, describing a change in Israel’s security doctrine following October 7, he said: “I am taking the reins, and I am changing it.” Netanyahu consistently presents himself as someone who sees what others cannot see and possesses the experience to provide the solution. His implicit message is reassuring.

Since people dislike uncertainty, particularly when it feels existential, they want someone who appears to understand what’s happening, knows what must be done, and is confident to act.

Another mechanism sustaining Netanyahu’s following is his ability to turn criticism into conviction. In 2021, he said: “The test of leadership requires that the right decisions be made even when they are not understood at any given moment and their justification becomes clear later on.”

Netanyahu has created a protective shield around him. If events prove him right, he was right. If they prove him wrong, it means history has not caught up with him. Therefore, he is never wrong, as it may simply be too early to know. This creates a remarkably resilient form of loyalty.

The fifth element is the sense of permanent external collective threat. Iran has occupied a central place in Netanyahu’s political narrative for decades, while Hamas, Hezbollah, and other enemies reinforce the perception that Israel is surrounded by hostile forces. The threats are real and Netanyahu’s uncompromising strength is presented as the only reliable means of protection.

In January 2024, Netanyahu declared: “No one will stop us, not The Hague, not the axis of evil, and not anyone else.” Such language positions him as the leader standing between his people and a hostile world. And his followers feel they cannot afford to weaken the person protecting them. As long as the threat remains, the protector is indispensable.

Netanyahu’s political success cannot be separated from his ability to turn political disagreement into questions of identity and belonging. Israeli society has long contained profound ideological, religious, ethnic, and social divisions. The crucial question is what political leaders do with those divisions.

When opponents are portrayed as dangerous rather than simply mistaken, compromise becomes harder. Disagreement can become disloyalty, and defending the leader can become a way of defending one’s own side.

This helps explain the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. When reality conflicts with a deeply held belief, people may reinterpret reality, so the belief can survive. Political attachment can become intertwined with identity, fear, and belonging. After years of defending a leader, acknowledging that he failed can mean reconsidering one’s own judgment.

That may be the deepest source of Netanyahu’s resilience. For some devoted supporters, letting go of Netanyahu may feel like letting go of a part of their identity, security, and certainty that he has come to represent.

The writer is an Israeli Canadian, formerly an economist and senior policy adviser in the Ontario Public Service, Canada. She is active in Jewish community life in Toronto and Miami, and writes about Israel, Zionism, and the relationship between Israel and the Diaspora.