For over thirty years, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently emphasized the theme of peace in his political messaging. His slogans, starting from as early as 1996, have included phrases like “Netanyahu – Peace and Security” and “Netanyahu. A Secure Peace.” Whether intentional or not, peace has always been woven into the fabric of his political narrative.
### Declining Mentions of Peace
In September 2023, just weeks before Hamas’s attack on October 7, Netanyahu addressed the United Nations, devoting significant time to discussing peace, particularly in the context of relations with Palestinians. He articulated a vision of expanding peace, stating, “As the circle of peace expands, I believe that a real path towards a genuine peace with our Palestinian neighbors can finally be achieved.” However, a notable decline in the frequency of his references to peace became apparent in subsequent years. His 2023 speech featured the term “peace” 42 times, a figure that dropped to 21 in the following year and to merely 13 in 2025. In his latest address in 2026, the word was mentioned only once.
The changing context of these references is just as significant as the numbers themselves. In 2023, most of his remarks related to the Palestinian conflict and contributed to a broader dialogue about cooperation. However, the narrative has since shifted. Recent discussions of peace have become more abstract, involving nations like Saudi Arabia and addressing concerns related to Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. The clear suggestion here is that peace with the Palestinians has fallen off the political agenda, only to be replaced with a more generalized concept of peace with other nations.
### Shift in the Political Landscape
Interestingly, Netanyahu isn’t isolated in this shift. The Israeli opposition has largely followed suit, with prominent figures like Naftali Bennett openly stating their opposition to a Palestinian state. Gadi Eisenkot, a leading candidate in the polls, labeled the two-state solution as “delusional.” Even Yair Golan, who heads the Democrats—successors of the historically significant Labor Party—rarely mentions peace. This is striking for a party whose leaders once secured a Nobel Peace Prize for their groundbreaking work with the Palestinians.
This decline in discourse around peace raises a crucial question: How has Israel—once known for extending an olive branch—arrived at a juncture where discussions about engaging with Palestinians have become virtually nonexistent among its political leaders?
### The Impact of October 7
The recent shift in conversation can largely be attributed to events surrounding October 7. The devastating assault by Hamas and the subsequent military conflict fundamentally altered Israeli perceptions regarding security and territory. Prior to this unstable period, the prevailing mindset leaned toward the belief that territorial concessions were manageable, facilitated by advanced military technology and intelligence. The horrifying realities of October 7 dismantled this confidence.
Today, Israel’s security strategies emphasize the importance of territorial integrity as critical for national stability. Control over land and establishing buffer zones have been deemed essential. This new approach is evident in Israel’s military presence in Gaza, southern Lebanon, and Syria, aimed at deterring hostile forces from infiltrating.
### Redefining Peace
Yet, the lack of dialogue surrounding peace isn’t merely a failure in rhetoric; it poses real consequences for the political landscape. Language shapes our political environment and informs public aspirations. When peace becomes absent from discussions, it risks being viewed as an unachievable ideal. The portrayal of peace should not be dismissed as naive; rather, it should catalyze a more grounded discourse about the challenges and aspirations for future governance.
The failures of previous peace initiatives should not lead us to conclude that peace itself is unattainable. Instead, they must compel us to reassess our methods. Moving forward, negotiations should integrate enforceable measures, public acceptance, and accountable governance on all sides. As history has shown, military victories will only yield lasting solutions if they are converted into political progress.
In conclusion, for Israel’s leadership, rekindling a conversation around peace—especially with the Palestinian community—should not be perceived as an acknowledgment of weakness but as a vital step toward sustainable coexistence. If the intent of attacks like that on October 7 was to dismantle pathways to peace, a commitment to redefining and prioritizing peace will undermine such intentions and ensure that both Israelis and Palestinians can envision a shared future.