Can Netanyahu learn from Theodore Roosevelt and step aside to save Likud? - opinion

In 2012, Avishay Braverman, a Labor MK and former chairman of the Knesset's Economic Affairs Committee, compared Benjamin Netanyahu to Theodore Roosevelt, calling him his "cultural hero." Braverman proposed that Netanyahu emulate Roosevelt's approach to economic power, suggesting price controls in the absence of sufficient competition, inspired by Roosevelt's fight against the "robber barons."

Roosevelt, known for his leadership and charisma, held a significant place in American history. His decision to step down after winning the election in 1904, and pass the leadership to William Howard Taft, has been noted as an example of leadership in the past. If Netanyahu were to follow Roosevelt's footsteps, he would have to consider stepping aside as the leader of Likud, supporting a successor, and attempting to keep the premiership within his party's hands.

While there is no guarantee that other parties would agree to give a Likud successor the premiership, if the possibility of forming a broad government led by Likud becomes apparent due to Netanyahu's opposition, he would be faced with a critical choice. He could either remain at the head of the party and risk moving into opposition, or step aside, support a successor, and pave the way for a government that would prevent the scenario he is actively fighting against: a left-wing government dependent on the Arab parties.

Netanyahu's potential decision to step aside could be seen as a selfless act, born out of necessity and necessity alone. However, even if it were driven by necessity, it would still be an act of leadership. The question remains: would Netanyahu be willing to pay for that with his position, and is maintaining his party's power enough for him to allow Likud to govern without him?