Increasingly, it’s become commonplace for people—both those overtly hostile to Israel and those somewhat sympathetic to it—to speak of “Netanyahu’s war.” The phrase betrays stunning ignorance. While Israelis are deeply divided about what direction the war should take, and even more deeply divided in their opinions of the prime minister, the general feeling is that the war is a necessity, being fought by the people’s army as an expression of the national will.

Yet it is hard to have a serious discussion of Israel’s current situation without at some point addressing the role of Benjamin Netanyahu. Tevi Troy’s review of My Brother’s Keeper, a biography of the prime minister by his former chief of staff Ari Harow, sheds some light on his personality. Key to understanding the prime minister, according to Troy, is understanding his view that, in order to influence Western leaders,

you have to convince their voters. This meant that Netanyahu was more interested in how his words were heard by the American people and not so much by American politicians. Netanyahu would accentuate this point by telling aides, “Why speak to 500 people when I could be speaking to 5 million?’”

This focus on communicating to Western voters can and did have the effect of alienating the Western politicians who serve and served those voters. This may be one of the reasons that American politicians find Netanyahu so infuriating, and why his impact drives so many to profanity. . . . Despite inducing all this profanity, Netanyahu himself is much more careful in his choice of words. According to Harow, Netanyahu never curses and is uncomfortable with people who do.

The most shocking revelation is that the prime minister demands that his aides “always wear a suit and tie,” which is “entirely contrary to the prevailing mode of dress in Israel.” More consequential, however, is Troy’s observation about

one trait that may be the most essential to his continued survival, and hence the most infuriating to his enemies. Netanyahu’s military special-forces training taught him to leave all options open at all times. This . . . means that Netanyahu dislikes being cornered and will wait until the last possible moment to decide on a course of action.

If there is to be peace, Palestinians will have to unlearn the hatred of Israel they have imbibed during nearly two decades of Hamas rule. This will be a difficult task, but Cole Aronson argues, drawing on the experiences of World War II, that Israel has already gotten off to a strong start:

The population’s compliance can . . . be won by a new regime that satisfies its immediate material needs, even if that new regime is sponsored by a government until recently at war with the population’s former regime. Axis civilians were made needy through bombing. Peaceful compliance with the Allies became a good alternative to supporting violent resistance to the Allies.

Israel’s current campaign makes a moderate Gaza more likely, not less. Destroying Hamas not only deprives Islamists of the ability to rule—it proves the futility of armed resistance to Israel, a condition for peace. The destruction of buildings not only deprives Hamas of its hideouts. It also gives ordinary Palestinians strong reasons to shun groups planning to replicate Hamas’s behavior.