A prisoner, a peacemaker, and Israel’s defining choice

Fourth, it could have a stabilizing effect on broader regional dynamics. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a central grievance exploited by Iran and its network of non-state actors, including Hezbollah. Resolving this conflict would not eliminate these tensions, but it could reduce their potency as mobilizing tools against Israel.

Fifth, releasing Barghouti could be reframed not as an Israeli concession, but as a strategic investment in long-term security. Israel's history demonstrates that military superiority alone cannot deliver lasting peace. Sustainable security requires political arrangements that address the underlying causes of conflict. Empowering a Palestinian leader capable of enforcing and sustaining such arrangements is therefore in Israel's own interest.

Sixth, the involvement of the United States would be critical in facilitating such a move. No external actor wields greater influence over Israeli decision-making. If a future US administration-including Trump's-is serious about advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace, it must be willing to prioritize bold and politically sensitive initiatives. Encouraging Barghouti's release could serve as a cornerstone of such an effort.

Admittedly, the obstacles are formidable. Israeli public opinion remains deeply skeptical, if not outright opposed, to releasing a figure convicted of orchestrating deadly attacks. Any Israeli government considering such a step would face intense domestic opposition. Yet history suggests that transformative decisions in protracted conflicts often require political courage that transcends immediate public sentiment.

For Israelis, the core question is not whether Barghouti is a flawless figure, but whether his release could meaningfully alter the trajectory of the conflict. After nearly eight decades of recurring violence, it is glaringly evident that the status quo is unsustainable. Military deterrence, while necessary, has not produced stability. Nor has the absence of a credible political horizon. Netanyahu's extreme right-wing government has proven the peril of relying on military force to force the Palestinians into submission.

A clear message must therefore be conveyed to the Israeli public: there will be no enduring security, no regional stability, and no normalization with other Arab states without resolving the Palestinian question. The pursuit of "greater Israel" or indefinite conflict management offers neither peace nor legitimacy. Coexistence is not a concession; it is the only viable path forward.

I am not naïve enough to assume that in the current national psychological mindset among Israelis, the release of Barghouti is a possibility, nor do I believe that any new government following the October elections will have the courage and the vision to take such a historic step.

But that does not suggest that we must settle with the perilous status quo. Every person or leader in and outside Israel who cares about the country's future, or who cares about the Palestinians' well-being and their right to statehood, must raise their voices and start the conversation. Time is not on Israel's side, as the country's international legitimacy is dangerously eroding following the disastrous war in Gaza.

The release of Marwan Barghouti should be understood not as a price to be paid, but as an opportunity to be seized. It represents a strategic opening to reshape Palestinian politics, reinvigorate diplomacy, and recalibrate regional dynamics in a direction that serves the long-term interests of all parties involved.

After decades of bloodshed, clinging to the status quo is no longer a strategy-it is surrender to perpetual conflict. Releasing Marwan Barghouti is not an act of mercy but of strategic necessity. Without bold action, peace will remain illusory; with it, a credible path toward peaceful coexistence may finally emerge.