By Alon Ben-Meir

What if the man Israel imprisoned for murder is also the only Palestinian capable of making peace? Marwan Barghouti embodies a paradox at the heart of the conflict: legitimacy born of resistance, coupled with a commitment to coexistence. Although the prospect of his release appears remote under Israel’s prevailing national mindset, people and leaders both inside and outside Israel must raise their voices and continue demanding a change in the course of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict toward peace, a path that Barghouti could help pave.

Marwan Barghouti remains one of the most influential and controversial figures in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Arrested by Israeli forces in April 2002 during the Second Intifada, he was convicted in 2004 on multiple charges, including murder and conspiracy in connection with attacks targeting Israeli civilians, and is currently serving five life sentences. His conviction followed a trial that was widely criticized as illegitimate and politically motivated. The Inter-Parliamentary Union, which represents more than 180 national parliaments, including the U.S. Congress, identified “numerous breaches of international law” in his case and concluded that “it is impossible to conclude that Mr. Barghouti was given a fair trial.”

Regardless of the gravity of the charges against him or the extent of the evidence supporting them, the question of Barghouti’s release should be assessed not only through the lens of justice, but also from the broader perspective of political necessity, conflict resolution, long-term regional stability, and the pursuit of peace.

Barghouti’s significance lies in his unique political standing among Palestinians. Unlike many Palestinian leaders confined to specific factions, Barghouti enjoys a rare legitimacy that transcends ideological divisions, extending across a broad spectrum from secular nationalists to elements within Islamist movements. In a deeply fragmented Palestinian political landscape, such unifying authority is exceedingly rare.

His continued imprisonment therefore carries strategic implications that extend far beyond Israel’s domestic legal considerations. Barghouti is widely viewed among Palestinians as a leader who combines a record of struggle and resistance with a realistic and pragmatic understanding of political realities. He has consistently advocated a two-state solution, acknowledging that coexistence with Israel is not only inevitable but necessary. At the same time, his history of resistance gives him credibility among constituencies that might otherwise reject compromise altogether.

This dual legitimacy combining resistance with political realism is what distinguishes Barghouti from other Palestinian leaders and makes him a potential catalyst for meaningful negotiations. In the absence of such a figure, efforts to revive a credible peace process are likely to remain stalled, as no current leadership possesses both the authority and the trust required to mobilize broad Palestinian support for difficult compromises.

A useful historical comparison can be made with Nelson Mandela. Like Barghouti, Mandela spent decades in prison on charges related to armed resistance. Yet his release in 1990 became a turning point not only for South Africa but also for the global understanding of conflict resolution. Mandela emerged not as a figure seeking revenge, but as a statesman committed to reconciliation. He understood that sustainable peace required moral courage, political vision, and the ability to transform legitimacy into a unifying force.

Other conflicts likewise demonstrate how releasing imprisoned leaders can reshape political trajectories. In Northern Ireland, the 1998 Good Friday Agreement included the early release of prisoners affiliated with paramilitary organizations, many of whom subsequently played constructive roles in consolidating the political order. Similarly, in Algeria, Ahmed Ben Bella previously imprisoned by the colonial authorities—emerged as a pivotal figure during the country’s transition to independence, demonstrating that detained leaders can later become architects of state-building and political reconciliation.

The comparison may not be perfect no historical analogy ever is but it carries important implications. It highlights the possibility that individuals once associated with violence can become indispensable actors in peacemaking, provided they possess the political authority and strategic vision necessary to lead their people toward reconciliation.

Releasing Barghouti would not simply be an act of clemency detached from political realities. It would constitute a calculated political decision with potentially far-reaching consequences. Several key considerations support this argument.

First, his release could help rebuild a credible Palestinian leadership capable of negotiating with Israel. The current leadership crisis within the Palestinian Authority, combined with the continuing division with Hamas, has severely undermined the prospects for unified representation. Barghouti could restore a measure of political cohesion.

Second, his release could weaken extremist narratives. Groups such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad derive part of their strength from the widespread perception that diplomacy has failed. Barghouti, who commands respect across different factions, could challenge this narrative by demonstrating that political engagement can produce tangible results.

Third, Barghouti’s release could generate renewed international momentum for the peace process. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has receded from the forefront of global diplomatic attention as other crises have taken precedence. A bold move of this kind could reshape the political landscape surrounding the conflict and potentially encourage international actors to re-engage in a substantive way.

Fourth, such a step could positively affect stability within the broader regional dynamics. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a central grievance exploited by Iran and its network of non-state actors, including Hezbollah. Although resolving the conflict would not eliminate these tensions entirely, it could reduce their effectiveness as instruments for mobilization and incitement against Israel.

Fifth, Barghouti’s release could be viewed not as an Israeli concession, but as a strategic investment in long-term security. Israel’s history demonstrates that military superiority alone is insufficient to achieve lasting peace. Sustainable security requires political arrangements that address the root causes of the conflict. Empowering a Palestinian leader capable of implementing and sustaining such arrangements would therefore serve Israel’s own interests.

Sixth, U.S. involvement would be crucial in facilitating such a step. No external actor possesses greater influence over Israeli decision-making than the United States. If any future U.S. administration including the Trump administration is serious about advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace, it must be prepared to prioritize bold and politically sensitive initiatives. Advocating Barghouti’s release could become a cornerstone of such an effort.

The obstacles are, admittedly, enormous. Israeli public opinion remains deeply skeptical if not outright opposed to releasing a figure convicted of orchestrating deadly attacks. Any Israeli government contemplating such a move would face intense domestic opposition. History, however, suggests that transformative decisions in protracted conflicts often require political courage that goes beyond prevailing public sentiment at a particular moment.

For Israelis, the fundamental question is not whether Barghouti is a flawless figure, but whether his release could materially alter the trajectory of the conflict. After nearly eight decades of recurring violence, it has become abundantly clear that the status quo is unsustainable. Military deterrence, despite its necessity, has not delivered the desired stability, nor has the absence of a credible political horizon. Netanyahu’s far-right government has demonstrated the dangers of relying on military force to compel Palestinian submission.

A clear message must therefore be conveyed to the Israeli public: lasting security, regional stability, and normalization with additional Arab states cannot be achieved without resolving the Palestinian issue. Pursuing a “Greater Israel” or simply managing the conflict indefinitely brings neither peace nor legitimacy. Coexistence is not a concession; it is the only practical path forward.

I am not naïve enough to assume that Barghouti’s release is likely under the prevailing national psychological mindset among Israelis, nor do I believe that any new government formed following the October elections will necessarily possess the courage and vision required to take such a historic step.

But that does not mean we should accept the dangerous status quo. Every individual or leader inside or outside Israel who cares about the country’s future, or about the well-being of Palestinians and their right to establish their own state, should raise their voice and initiate this debate. Time is not working in Israel’s favor, particularly as its international legitimacy is being seriously eroded in the aftermath of the catastrophic war in Gaza.

The release of Marwan Barghouti should be viewed not as a price to be paid, but as an opportunity to be seized. He represents a potential strategic breakthrough: an opportunity to reshape the Palestinian political landscape, breathe new life into diplomacy, and recalibrate regional dynamics in ways that serve the long-term interests of all parties concerned.

After decades of bloodshed, clinging to the status quo is no longer a strategy; it is a surrender to perpetual conflict. Releasing Marwan Barghouti would not be an act of mercy, but a strategic necessity. Without bold steps, peace will remain an illusion. With them, a credible path toward peaceful coexistence may finally begin to take shape.