By Sardar Khan Niazi

Changing Israel’s leadership will not end the suffering of Palestinians unless the political system and ideology sustaining occupation, dispossession and collective punishment are fundamentally challenged. Netanyahu has played a central role in advancing Israel’s devastating military campaign in Gaza and in entrenching policies that have inflicted immense suffering on the Palestinian population. But to imagine that his departure would, by itself, bring an end to the violence is to mistake a symptom for the disease. The problem extends beyond Netanyahu. It lies in a political order that has sustained occupation, settlement expansion, territorial dispossession and the systematic denial of Palestinian self-determination for decades. Unless these structures are confronted, a change of government in Israel may alter the language of its policies without necessarily changing their substance. The question, therefore, is not simply who governs Israel, but what political vision governs its treatment of Palestinians. Israel’s political landscape is not monolithic. Its parties, voters and political movements differ in important respects, and it would be inaccurate to suggest that every Israeli shares the same ideology or supports the same policies. Nevertheless, the persistence of occupation and the marginalization of Palestinian rights across successive governments demand scrutiny beyond the conduct of a single administration. For decades, Israeli governments of different political persuasions have presided over the expansion of settlements in the occupied West Bank, restrictions on Palestinian movement, the fragmentation of Palestinian territory and the continued absence of a sovereign Palestinian state. These policies did not begin with Netanyahu, even if his governments have intensified particular aspects of them. The growing influence of Israel’s far right becomes especially significant. Ultranationalist and religious-nationalist factions have openly promoted territorial expansion and opposed Palestinian statehood. Their influence has helped narrow the space for political compromise and reinforced a framework in which Palestinian freedom is treated as a threat rather than a legitimate demand. The danger is not confined to the rhetoric of extremist politicians. It lies in the normalization of policies that would otherwise provoke sustained international condemnation: the continued occupation of Palestinian territory, the expansion of settlements, the displacement of communities and the destruction of civilian infrastructure. In Gaza, the consequences have been catastrophic. The Israeli military campaign has caused mass death, widespread displacement and the destruction of homes, hospitals, schools and essential infrastructure. The population has endured severe deprivation, while the prospects for reconstruction and a viable political future remain deeply uncertain. Moderation in rhetoric is not the same as justice in practice. A government that reduces the intensity of military operations while preserving occupation and denying Palestinians meaningful political rights would leave the central conflict unresolved. Peace cannot be built on the indefinite subordination of one people to another. Nor can security be achieved by making an entire population bear the consequences of the actions of armed groups. The deliberate targeting of civilians is prohibited, and the rules of international humanitarian law apply to all parties. Israel’s security concerns do not erase Palestinian rights, just as Palestinian suffering cannot justify attacks on Israeli civilians. The path forward requires more than replacing one politician with another. It requires confronting the political assumptions that have allowed permanent control over Palestinian territory to be treated as compatible with peace. The international response has also exposed a profound contradiction. Western governments frequently invoke a rules-based international order, yet their willingness to impose meaningful consequences on Israel has often fallen short of their stated commitments to international law. Diplomatic protection, arms transfers and selective enforcement of legal obligations weaken the credibility of international institutions. When violations are condemned in principle but tolerated in practice, accountability becomes contingent on political alliances rather than legal standards. For Pakistan and other countries that have consistently advocated Palestinian statehood, the challenge is to translate principled positions into sustained diplomatic action. Statements of solidarity are important, but they cannot substitute for a coherent international effort to protect Palestinian lives and secure Palestinian political rights. Gaza does not need merely a different Israeli government. It needs an end to the conditions that have made its devastation possible. Without that transformation, a new face in the prime minister’s office may offer the appearance of change while leaving the underlying injustice intact.