The inclusion of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Time magazine’s shortlist for Person of the Year has raised significant controversy, especially in light of his role in the ongoing violence and destruction in Gaza. Under Netanyahu’s leadership, Israel’s military actions in Gaza have resulted in the deaths of over 44,000 Palestinians, and the destruction of vital infrastructure, including healthcare facilities, schools, and homes. His policies have sparked widespread criticism, including allegations of genocide from organizations such as Amnesty International.
Time’s nomination of Netanyahu has drawn attention not only because of the scale of human suffering attributed to his actions but also due to his controversial leadership and allegations of corruption. Many see this recognition as a validation of Netanyahu’s hardline approach, which includes the continued military assault on Gaza even as civilian casualties mount. Critics argue that Time’s decision sends a dangerous message, especially as Netanyahu has been accused of committing war crimes and his actions are currently under investigation by the International Criminal Court.
This nomination stands in stark contrast to the absence of Palestinian voices on the list. Prominent Palestinian figures, such as journalists and activists who have been raising awareness about the conflict, have been overlooked. This includes photojournalists like Motaz Azaiza, who was recognized in Time’s 100 Most Influential People of 2024 list, and Bisan Owda, a journalist whose coverage of Gaza has gained widespread attention. Their exclusion from the Person of the Year shortlist has been met with criticism, as many feel it disregards the contributions and sacrifices of Palestinians in the face of occupation and violence.
The decision to shortlist Netanyahu, particularly given his polarizing role in the conflict and his international standing as a figure accused of war crimes, has prompted heated debate. While Time’s “Person of the Year” title is intended to recognize the individual or entity that had the most significant impact—regardless of whether the impact was positive or negative—many argue that this choice legitimizes Netanyahu’s actions and undermines the reality of the situation in Gaza and beyond.
