BINYAMIN NETANYAHU is articulate, dashing—and distrusted, by friends and foes alike. Nicolas Sarkozy, a former French president, was once heard telling Barack Obama: “I can’t stand him. He’s a liar.” Mr Obama did not demur.

This month the Israeli prime minister offered fresh glimpses of his deviousness. Following reports that he had offered the Palestinians more generous terms than his rhetoric admits, Mr Netanyahu (pictured, right) tried to regain right-wing support by repudiating his acceptance, in a speech in 2009, of (strictly limited) Palestinian statehood. This leaves a big question: is the real Bibi a man of negotiation, or of occupation? Recklessly, he gambled with bipartisan American support for Israel when he defied Mr Obama by brazenly appearing before a Republican-dominated Congress to denounce the administration’s nuclear negotiations with Iran: “This is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it.”

On March 17th Israeli voters will have their say on Bibi (see article). In this newspaper’s view he has been a bad deal for Israel. It is better off without him. His challenger, Yitzhak “Bougie” Herzog (pictured, left), is not charismatic. But he is level-headed and has a credible security and economic team. He wants talks with the Palestinians and to heal ties with Mr Obama. He deserves a chance to prove himself.

Prime minister, you’re no David Ben-Gurion

In office for the past six years, having served a three-year stint in the 1990s, Mr Netanyahu is now Israel’s longest-serving leader since David Ben-Gurion. That is a remarkable feat for a man whose father once doubted his suitability for the job. Mr Netanyahu’s longevity is due to many factors, not least luck, cunning, a silver tongue and the loyalty of the Likud party. But his achievements are outweighed by his many flaws.

On the positive side, he has liberalised the Israeli economy and promoted a thriving high-tech sector. He navigated skilfully through the financial crisis and the long slump in Europe, Israel’s largest trading partner. He kept Iran’s nuclear programme at the forefront of world attention. He also kept Israel safe after the Arab-spring revolts of 2011, which toppled leaders and cracked fossilised states across the region. The jihadists and Shia militias that filled the void might have turned their guns on Israel, and may yet do so. For the time being they are killing each other. In the turmoil Israel has forged closer ties with Egypt and, more secretly, with Arab monarchies.

Against this, Bibi’s preservation of the military occupation in the West Bank and the stranglehold over Gaza Strip must count heavily against him. He has refused to make any genuine concessions to the Palestinians, on the ground that “there is no partner for peace”—even though Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, has abjured violence and maintained security co-operation with Israel in the West Bank (Gaza is controlled by the Islamist Hamas movement). Mr Abbas himself has plenty of shortcomings, but he has also been deliberately weakened by Mr Netanyahu. Israel has cut off Palestinian tax revenues in retaliation for Mr Abbas’s decision to join the International Criminal Court. The pragmatism that Mr Netanyahu sometimes expresses is belied by his actions: he has expanded settlements, thus breaking up Palestinian areas and making a mockery of the very notion of Palestinian statehood.

To Israelis traumatised by missiles and rockets, Mr Netanyahu sounds plausible when he claims that giving the Palestinians control over their own land will bring more violence. The turmoil of the Arab world deepens these fears. Had Israel handed the Golan Heights back to Syria, it might now find itself facing fighters from Hizbullah, al-Qaeda or Islamic State on the Sea of Galilee.

However, without a Palestinian state, Israel will either endanger its Jewish majority or lose its moral standing by subjugating and disenfranchising the Palestinian population. Israel will lose support abroad even when it legitimately defends itself. In the final days of the campaign, Mr Netanyahu may well play up the dangers from Iran, jihadists and Hamas. But the truth is that immobilism, too, is endangering Israel.