Netanyahu’s ‘victory’ speech risks undermining fragile peace

By N.S. Venkataraman* 

The world heaved a sigh of relief when Israel and Hamas finally reached a settlement to halt the war. The exchange of hostages between the two sides marks a positive step after two years of bitter conflict and offers a faint but meaningful hope for future peace.

There is no doubt that Hamas triggered this round of violence by launching a surprise raid that killed hundreds of innocent Israeli civilians and took many hostages. Faced with this, Israel had little choice but to retaliate. Yet, that retaliation was marked by extraordinary ferocity, resulting in the deaths of more than 70,000 civilians in Gaza and the surrounding areas, injuries to countless others, and the near collapse of basic living conditions, including food shortages verging on starvation.

The world recoiled at the barbarity of Hamas’s initial assault, but it was equally horrified by the scale of destruction Israel unleashed on Gaza. Over two years of mutual devastation, civilians on both sides yearned for an end to the violence, and leaders in Israel and Hamas alike sought a face-saving formula to conclude a war that had reached a deadlock.

It was at this juncture that former U.S. President Donald Trump stepped in, claiming credit for facilitating the peace settlement. His efforts to mediate deserve recognition, but it cannot be ignored that the United States was far from neutral during the conflict. Washington’s military and diplomatic support enabled Israel to sustain its campaign, a fact widely acknowledged. While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed Trump as Israel’s “greatest friend” and even suggested he deserved a Nobel Peace Prize, Hamas, unsurprisingly, offered no such praise.

Now that the conflict has formally ended, people in both Israel and Gaza—and indeed, the global community—long for the truce to hold. Yet Netanyahu’s so-called victory speech in the Knesset raises troubling questions about his intentions. Rather than sounding conciliatory or forward-looking, the speech was steeped in triumphalism. Netanyahu claimed that Israel had “virtually destroyed” Hamas and laced his words with subtle but unmistakable hostility. Absent was any acknowledgment of Palestinian suffering or gesture toward reconciliation.

Such rhetoric risks reigniting the very animosity that the peace deal seeks to contain. It can only deepen resentment among Hamas supporters, leaving them feeling humiliated and vengeful. A peace founded on humiliation cannot endure; it must rest on mutual respect, contrition, and the recognition of the immense suffering on both sides.

Netanyahu’s address, instead of building a bridge toward coexistence, appears to have shut one down. It has sown doubt globally about whether the ceasefire represents a genuine end to hostilities or merely a pause before the next eruption. By failing to temper his words with humility and compassion, Netanyahu may have squandered a rare chance to reset relations with the Palestinians and lay the groundwork for a durable peace.

Adding to this unease, Trump told the Knesset that Israel had “won all that it can by force of arms” and declared, “You have won—I mean, you have won.” Such language is out of place in a peace context. When the goal is reconciliation, talk of victory and defeat undermines the very essence of peacemaking.

In moments like this, words matter as much as actions. Both leaders had the opportunity to turn the page toward healing. Instead, their speeches risk keeping the wounds of war open.

---

*Trustee, Nandini Voice for the Deprived, Chennai