Image courtesy of Arie Leib Abrams/Flash90

Since the beginning of the new escalation of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, marked by Hamas’ attack on the infamous October 7, 2023, international media and political attention has largely focused on the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. This is not surprising: he holds decision-making power and commands the armed forces. It is therefore natural that the global debate has revolved around his figure. Yet there is another prominent actor who deserves attention: the President of Israel, Isaac Herzog, whose moral and institutional role could carry significant weight in times of crisis such as this.

The authority of the Israeli President does not extend to executive functions: as noted, it is primarily moral and institutional. In other words, the office is one of guarantee and representation. Precisely because he lacks executive powers, particularly in matters of foreign policy, security, and war, the President cannot negotiate peace agreements, order military operations, or alter the government’s political line.

In contexts such as the Israeli–Palestinian crisis, however, the President has the opportunity to act as a spokesperson for peace and dialogue. Herzog, nevertheless, has never taken a firm stand against government decisions, perhaps to avoid political frictions at such a delicate time. His statements have remained limited to general criticisms, such as the condemnation of Hamas and of global antisemitism. Even when he put forward concrete proposals — such as calling for a new humanitarian aid plan that bypassed Hamas, or his meeting with Pope Leo XIV (May 12, 2025), during which he requested a permanent ceasefire and the resumption of negotiations between the two states — these interventions were rather soft, unable to truly challenge government decisions.

This, however, is insufficient. Faced with the Palestinian genocide — as well as the innocent Israeli victims who oppose this genocide, and humanitarian workers from different parts of the world — mere declarations are not enough. In the face of such dehumanization, politics cannot be the framework, nor can the discourse revolve around winners and losers. One cannot condemn Hamas terrorists on the one hand, and then justify the killing of multitudes of people on the other. This double-standard policy threatens our very humanity, and the fact that innocent people continue to die in 2025 is outrageous, shameful, and unforgivable.

But what could Herzog have done? Undoubtedly more. He could have openly and decisively opposed Netanyahu. The concept of national unity, so deeply ingrained in Israel and often invoked in times of war, was not strategically applied in this case. Herzog promoted it, but always in an accommodating way toward Netanyahu and his leadership. National unity should not revolve around a single political figure but should aim to hold together the broader community in moments of crisis. By publicly inviting opposition leaders — such as Lapid and Gantz — to collaborate with the executive in a broader emergency government, Herzog could have challenged Netanyahu’s leadership. In doing so, he might have become a reference point for the people, ensuring that much-desired national unity, but beyond Netanyahu, not beneath him.

On the international stage, Herzog could also have taken on a more incisive role, positioning himself as a “presidential arbiter” rather than merely as Israel’s representative. By demonstrating independence from government policies, he would have been perceived as a neutral figure and could have spoken out more forcefully, for example, on humanitarian access and the protection of civilians. Such a stance would also have benefited Israel’s position in the international community.

In contexts where humanity itself is at stake, the President’s detachment from realpolitik acquires profound significance. Since he is not bound to the government’s immediate interests, the President has the unique opportunity to adopt a different language: that of moral responsibility and human rights. Distancing oneself from realpolitik is not a matter of political opposition but rather of projecting an ethical image capable of correcting, to some extent, the line pursued by the government. Herzog could not halt the war or directly influence military–strategic decisions. Yet he could have reminded the world that the legitimacy of a state rests not only on power and victories on the battlefield but also on its capacity — and above all its willingness — to safeguard humanity.

Even if politics often bends to the logic of force, it remains vital to remain faithful to one’s nature: recognizing that every human being has an inherent dignity, the right to life, to security, and to protection. As human beings, we have a moral obligation to act in respect of humanity and not to self-destruct, as though the lives of political or religious adversaries were worth less than our own, merely out of ideological or dogmatic arrogance.

Israel knows this all too well, having experienced it firsthand after the Second World War: its people, survivors of the atrocious Nazi genocide, received the aid and support of the international community. The latter opened its eyes and recognized the necessity of acting in accordance with principles of humanity and justice. But why, then, do we find ourselves here today? How can Israel, after having received protection, assistance, and solidarity in the post-war period, now deny the same rights to the Palestinian people? Why does the international community — and in particular the Western powers, which once acted decisively to help and defend Israel — fail to do the same today? How is it possible, and even remotely tolerable, that historical alliances, economic interests, and political calculations prevail over ethics and our very humanity? This culture of double standards must end, or the risk of our own self-destruction will become ever closer and inevitable.

To overcome it, the first to act must be those holding institutional responsibilities — precisely figures such as Herzog. Strength also means having the courage to assume moral responsibility for the actions of one’s Prime Minister, even at the cost of undermining one’s popularity. Acting according to universal humanity and dignity is the only viable path forward, and it is time we acknowledged it.

AP News. (2025, September 4). Pope Leo XIV discusses Gaza, 2-state solution with Israeli president. https://apnews.com/article/adee8db57887e916b2b64796ce80b5ca

Atlantic Council. (2025). Five questions (and expert answers) on the state of the Netanyahu government. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/five-questions-and-expert-answers-on-the-state-of-the-netanyahu-government/ 

Atlantic Council. (2023, dicembre 19). Israeli President Isaac Herzog on the Israel-Hamas war and the future of the Middle East. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/news/transcripts/israeli-president-isaac-herzog-on-the-israel-hamas-war-and-the-future-of-the-middle-east/ 

European Parliament. (2023, gennaio 26). President Herzog: “Antisemitism remains, and Holocaust denial still exists”. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20230119IPR68202/president-herzog-antisemitism-remains-and-holocaust-denial-still-exists