Main Edition
US
FR
Has Netanyahu miscalcluated? (Photo by Houssam Shbaro/Anadolu via Getty Images)
For decades, Benjamin Netanyahu touted himself as Mr Security, the leader Israelis could count on to keep them safe. Then came Hamas’s October 7 assault, which killed 1,200 people, and took at least 230 hostages, shattering the Prime Minister’s image as protector of Israel. Ever since, he has been desperately trying to redeem his reputation. The ferocity of Israel’s retaliation in Gaza owes as much to this as to the shock and horror that swept the country in the aftermath of the atrocity.
One year on, Netanyahu is determined to continue his war in Gaza at all costs — not just to Gazans, of whom more than 40,000 have been killed and another 1.9 million (90% of the population) displaced, but to the Israeli hostages as well. His future and the outcome of the war are now inseparable.
Even before October 7, Netanyahu was highly polarising. Liberal Israelis turned up in vast numbers to protest his policies, denouncing him as a threat to democracy and the rule of law, while those on the Right saw him as a peerless leader, even a saviour. Attitudes towards him have only hardened. The families of the remaining hostages believe that only a ceasefire will bring their loved ones home and that Netanyahu refuses to agree to one because he is obsessed with destroying Hamas entirely. Other Israelis are convinced that Netanyahu is bent on prolonging the Gaza war to remain in power so as to avoid facing the pending corruption charges against him. More still see him as a threat to rule of law in Israel. Many Israelis hold all three of these opinions. In a late July interview, the former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert went to far as to warn that the country could descend into civil war — a view shared by nearly half the respondents in an August poll.
Yet despite this, Netanyahu’s vow to destroy Hamas has proven chimerical. And his refusal to abandon it has created a rift between him and the most hawkish members of his cabinet — National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who lead far-Right religious parties — and senior Israeli military officers and intelligence officials who insist that Hamas cannot be vanquished.
But what does it actually mean in practice, to destroy Hamas? The IDF’s overwhelming superiority in soldiers, military technology and firepower may well demolish its fighting force, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, and eliminate its senior commanders. (The Brigades’ leader, Mohammed Deif, has most likely already been killed.) And even if the Brigades don’t disappear, they will have been battered badly. But destroying Hamas entirely is all but impossible. It is a political movement with a distinctive ideology, which includes ending Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and control of Gaza through a draconian blockade. So long as both continue it will have a cause to which it can rally support. Thousands of vengeful young men whose mothers, fathers and siblings have been killed by Israel’s war machine will continue to join up, the suffocating Israeli blockade fuelling their resentment.
Regardless of Hamas’s future, when the war eventually ends, Israel will have to arrange for Gaza’s governance. But none of the available choices is workable. Netanyahu has ruled out a coalition government containing the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas or even one run solely by the PA. As for a government staffed by Gaza’s notables, that would be almost impossible. Anyone who steps forward will be condemned as a Quisling: the more acceptable they are to Israel, the less they will be trusted by Gazans. Alternatively, Israel could run Gaza through a military occupation but that, sooner or later, would restart the familiar cycle of repression and resistance.
To complicate matters, Israel is waging a war of sorts on a second front, the West Bank, where tension and violence are increasing. State-sanctioned seizures of land there have accelerated, with the largest single authorisation in three decades taking place in July. The number of housing units has nearly doubled over the past five years, according to the European Union which doesn’t include the nearly 200 “outposts”, many of which eventually gain legal status despite being illegal under Israeli law. Meanwhile, settlers’ attacks on Palestinians have surged along with their destruction of Palestinians’ olive groves, gardens and orchards; the killing and stealing of sheep and cattle; the demolition and defacement of schools; and the takeover of water sources, sometimes assisted by the IDF.
Worse, as +972 Magazine reports, the security forces and settlers have killed nearly 700 West Bank Palestinians since October 7. Israel’s far-Right parties have praised these attacks, denouncing foreign criticism as smears. Ben Gvir has even relaxed gun ownership laws for the settlers: within the first two months of Hamas’s attack, 250,000 firearm applications were filed, more than in the past 25 years. In fact, the Government’s relentless, accelerated approval of West Bank settlements has all but destroyed the already-dim prospects of a two-state solution.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe Palestinians want the land the Israelis are on, and are not happy, nor will they ever be, with what they’ve got. The political structures and organisations that govern them are committed to violence to remove the Israelis from the land. From the river to the sea. The Israelis for their part are not going anywhere.
Without picking a side, violence is inevitable and whoever wins the violence gets a stronger negotiating hand, assuming it gets to that. If you are going to fight, you need to fight to win.
The October 7th attacks gave Israel a once-in-a-generation chance to go in really hard, and they are taking it. Doing so before the Iranians get nuclear capability might also be a consideration.
They really don’t have a choice here. For all the feel-good cheering at the sheer elan with which they’ve gone after Hezbollah of late, I doubt the leadership is so delusional that they’re fighting battles they don’t need to, and they may very well be fighting battles they don’t want to.
Why would the Palestinians be happy with jews living on land they stole from the Palestinians without permission? Would you want millions living on your land they had stolen?
It would help if you studied a bit of history.
History is neat because you can pick your starting point to create your own personal story. As you will know, the original thought was that Zion was to have been in Ethiopia. It was only a thought or a suggestion but you could start your history there, as did a few Rastafarians.
In fact, both sides have a viewpoint about the original Palestine. The viewpoint tends to vary with age. In Europe in 1945 there was a collective guilt about the Jews. Those people born in the 50s, 60s and 70s grew up with this guilt. Those born later came into the world and their history was different because the Jews in the UK had almost disappeared by assimilation. You could have been sitting in a pub in a group of 10 people and there were 3 Jewish people in the group …. and you wouldn’t know. If you had known you wouldn’t have cared. If you were born in 2000 and were a student in 2020, your history would show everyone about you as privileged fat-cats but those poor people in Gaza would now be the underdogs like the Jewish people were in 1945. Human nature.
Why did arabs sell land to Jews ?. Arabs were happy to accept up to 10 times the value of the land? Why did the Arabs support the Nazis and not fight with the allies where they could hav reveived training- Hussein Grand Mufti of of Jerusalem?Why did Aarab nations ask Arabs to leave Palestine in 1948 during war ?
WWII lasted for 6 years. Sometimes, it takes time to defeat Evil.
Unfortunately in this case both sides are evil
I know my mind and I am not evil.
And you, dear fake Appalachian, sit on the throne of virtue?
True. But both sides are also good. Or to say it better, both sides are non-binary.
Anti-impérialist struggles to return people to their land takes even longer !
“Hamas is a political movement with a distinctive ideology, which includes ending Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and control of Gaza through a draconian blockade.” This is a total lie. Hamas wants to destroy the Jewish state, not just end the occupation of the West Bank. And if there really was a “draconian blockade” Hamas would not have been able to smuggle in thousands of weapons, ammunition, and cement for reinforcing 300 miles of tunnels.
Like many academics, the author refuses to acknowledge the possibility that some Israeli’s support Netanyahu’s actions – let alone expose any intelligent analysis of why supporters think like this.
I have to admit to my own bias, as when I saw the author was not only an academic – but “teaches” at Columbia – I sighed.
Pontificates better?
I very much welcome Unherd’s publication of one-sided articles like this. The understanding I gain from the subsequent comments is normally significant. And before you ask, I don’t work for UnHerd:)
Unherd claims to permit the expressing of a spectrum of political views, and it does in fact stick to this promise. I too support the publication of articles here that I disagree with: there are plenty of news sources that are there only to reinforce readers’ prejudices.
I agree with both you and Ian but wonder if there is a new policy to erase up- and down-ticks within a couple of days?
Ah, so it’s not just me. I had wondered what was going on with the comment ‘rust’ too.
It is strange that some articles suddenly revert to “zero ticks” but stay sorted as though the ticks were still there.. Answers on a postcard please ….
Yes, I noticed this as well.
On UnHerd too, I’m afraid. Here and in private life I constantly upset my wife by arguing the opposite case to the consensus in the room. She thinks I am being clever but it’s more than that. My supervisor at college said that only way to be sure you’re right about something is to see all sides of the argument.
Israel has nukes, hamas could not destroy Israel if they wanted to. Honestly you perpetual victims need to think and stop bleating this nonsense. And here is a newsflash, the Palestinians are allowed to smuggle in anything they damn well please into their own land.
You are right that Hamas could not destroy Israel, but I understand that Hamas was actually formed with that intention.
Hamas strategy is to make many Jews leave Israel. That hurts economy, army and investment. Eventually Israel collapses.
Theyv are Arabs who are a security risk to Israel. They have no territory nor nation. If Ms Harris wins, they can apply for US Asylum. What a rich addition to tapestry of diversity!
Well said. It is sickening how journalists (who basically represent the Woking Class view on the whole) seldom state badly that Hamas and Hezbollah are proscribed terrorist organisations whose primary aim is to destroy the state of Israel and ethnically ‘cleanse’ (read ‘kill’) every Jew from Palestine.
“Wars are easy to start but hard to end — and quickly spiral out of the control of those who initiate them.“
Correct. Iran is in big trouble.
This has been going on since even before the formation of Israel in 48. Is Israel now under more threat than it was in 48, or in 73? Anyone thinking so hasn’t studied their history. Iran may be trying to get a Nuclear ballistic missile, but even if it did it knows it’s use results in their own total destruction.
The fundamental inability of Palestinian leadership to accept a 2-State solution and bring it’s people with them, rejecting the ‘river to the sea’ adherents. is the great historical tragedy. It was there for them but they blew it. You have no immutable right to a State and it may be they’ve condemned themselves to being kettled up in a form of gangster limbo for decades to come. Containment allows others to live a largely peaceful and fulfilling life.
Israel is not without some fault but the extremism on the Arab side begets and nourishes the extreme Israeli settler response. Israel must of course tackle the latter or it will weaken it’s international support, which despite it’s brilliant resilience and sophistication it still needs.
In the meantime Israel remains the one democracy in the region with a thriving high tech economy, (not reliant on Oil). And it’s done this whilst remaining under significant threat for 76 years. Whether there is a coherent roadmap to full peace right now or not they’ve been here before.
This is the type of delusional nonsense the world now sees through, which is why the majority of the global population have turned against Israel. How many countries are now going to buy tech from Israel now we know they booby trap pagers and things to blow up civilians? And Israel is not a democracy, it’s a racist vicious theocracy. Now for a size lesson.
Israel is about 22,750 square kilometers of land mass with a jewish population of less than 8 million. Tehran alone has a population of over 10 million, Iran is 1.67 MILLION square kilometres. Israel might have the bigger army, navy and airforce but how do you think they will fly across all the nations from Israel to Iran, let alone have long distance fighter jets that can arrive but never leave.
“how do you think they will fly across all the nations from Israel to Iran”
How do you think Israeli jets were able to bomb Yemen?
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-launches-strikes-yemeni-houthi-targets-2024-09-29/
Have you noticed they had to fly across a few nations to do that? Have you considered that Arab governments may be fairly relaxed about the Israelis bombing Iran or Iranian proxies?
Your military analysis is very interesting.
It’s about as useful as the article itself. I’m interested what it is exactly you are trying to teach us with your ‘size lesson’.
If Israel has less land you could argue the counter point that actually it is easier to defend because it has less territory to protect, if its army is bigger and has less territory to defend surely that is preferable to having a smaller army and a large territory to defend?
Sunni Muslim are cheering the death of Nasrallah.
Boringly, I hook onto the one critical word, – democracy. It is difficult to imagine any democracy coming from the Arab world – or the Iranian world. The religion always wins. Democracy begins but armed fundamentalists cut across the process – The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and then Isis. The world leaders have no answer to this. The idea is that you stop fighting, you put in aid, you rebuild and then you negotiate a settlement. Who do you negotiate with?
BTW, I am not on any side but am merely presenting the age-old problem, the one that never goes away.
Worth bearing in mind Israel has/had decent relationships with Egypt, Turkey and Abraham Accords strengthened relations with others. Peaceful co-existence much more shared now than in first few post WW2 decades. Iran is main problem today. Muslim Brotherhood and Isis are Sunni not Shia, and whilst retaining a hatred of Israel they don’t have the economic leverage of Iran and can’t equip Hamas and Hezbollah. Many Arab states, and Eqypt too, anti Isis and MB.
Wow. After reading this I realise Israel is on its knees and about to self destruct…
Everything that has happened, and will happen, is Biden’s fault as well as Netanyahu’s. At every step, Netanyahu chose to escalate and Biden chose to let him.
Ridiculous. Biden and Netanyahu didn’t do October 7th.
Yes, Netanyahu’s awful and should be back in the dock. And the one good thing that might have come out of all this would have been his removal from power (and hopefully time inside). But it’s starting to look like he’ll get away with it – yet again.
We all know that Biden’s mentally incapable of taking any of these decisions.
Yes, the poor innocent mullahs and their tyranny in Tehran, their Arab puppets, dead and alive, the 07 October attack, the decades of brainwashing by Iranian funded “education, Iranian attempts to slaughter Jews…none of that happened except for the evil Jews.
Not to mention the ‘educational’ hatred offered in UNRWA schools. I see that, finally, Guterres has been banned from Israel.
It’s good that UnHerd presents a range of views, but, I feel lately I’ve been reading too much of the line I hear on the BBC & ABC and other ‘mainstream’ outlets. Instead of having this author again, maybe publish something by Haviv Rettig Gur? I watched an interview with him on the Free Press channel and now he pops up in my YouTube feed, and he’s another voice I like to hear.
“His war”? WTF are you talking about. So we have gone from pretending that Iran and its imperial ambition has merit to tolerating anti-semitic calls for genocide, to blaming Israel for Iran’s attacks on Israel.
Simplistic and biased “ analysis” of this kind is of no use to anyone and Unherd should be embarrassed for publishing it.
It’s generated some great comments for me to read.
I see what you mean – but isn’t there a danger with click bait articles such as this? But maybe the conversation is more important.
Generally (with a few notable exceptions) the comments on Unherd are more illuminating than the articles.
Especially where the articles are written by academics.
I’ve been posting here for a little while, over that time, having now read quite a few articles and comments by ‘academics’, my faith in our universities and our academics in general has been completely destroyed.
I haven’t been to university myself, the situation in higher education is frankly quite alarming to an outsider.
My granddaughter wanted to go to university – she called it ‘uni’ and that is an awful name. Her mother and father pushed, my wife pushed but I said to get a job instead. She chose the job and she’s never looked back; she’s also a much better, more rounded person after her decision.
Later, having seen their daughter blossom, her mother and father suggested that my grandson should become a plumber. Now he’s qualified and can actually do useful things. Uni is a total waste of time unless you want to use your degree as a career. (Don’t talk to me about lawyers).
There is no way that you can be on both sides in this argument. But you are right. Here, the comments are more important. Well said!
I agree. This statement:
‘The IDF’s overwhelming superiority in soldiers, military technology and firepower may well demolish its fighting force, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, and eliminate its senior commanders. (The Brigades’ leader, Mohammed Deif, has most likely already been killed.) And even if the Brigades don’t disappear, they will have been battered badly. But destroying Hamas entirely is all but impossible.’
Contradicts this:
: “The IDF, which failed to destroy Hamas, certainly won’t be able to destroy Hezbollah, which is hundreds of times more powerful than Hamas.”
Firstly, Israel haven’t even finished trying to destroy Hamas. If it has military superiority over Hamas then there is no reason why it won’t succeed in defeating Hamas. Also I came across this idea the other day: that destroying Hamas ‘is all but impossible’ because of the idea it represents. I find this rather childish, of coarse you couldn’t ever perhaps literally entirely destroy an organisation like Hamas or the idealogy behind it but actually you can pretty much obliterate it militarily. What happens to Gaza after the war now is uncertain, so surely the idealogy that drives Hamas could actually change after the war, depending on what happens to the Palestinian people when Hamas main network has been destroyed.
Also ‘hundreds of times more powerful’ is a very ambiguous statement regarding hezbollah, the analysis that Israel couldn’t come close to all but destroying them is therefore also flawed.
“doesn’t have enough troops to remain for a long period of time in any territory it conquers, nor does it have troops to relieve those who are fighting”.
This is also irrelevant as Israel isn’t exactly trying to take territory from Hezbollah or Lebanon, just destroy Hezbollahs positions and networks, so surely it doesn’t need to hold territory for long, nor is it trying to ‘conquer territory’ I don’t think, Israels objective as far as I understand it is to destroy Hezbollahs network, not conquer and hold Lebanese territory.
OK, a couple of things. In 2001 the US and most of the world bombed broken backed Afghanistan and defeated the taliban in a few weeks and cheered and declared victory. 20 years later the US and allies were driven out like thieves in the night by the taliban which is more powerful now than before. It cost $3 trillion to achieve less than nothing.
In 2003 Bush, Australia and the UK illegally invaded Iraq, 3 weeks later Bush gave his Mission Accomplished speech. 15 years later the US had to withdraw almost everyone, has a more powerful shia government which is now friends with Iran instead of enemies, their populations are 44 million Iraqis and 92 million Iranians. Friends both firing missiles at Iraq. The cost was another $3 trillion to achieve less than nothing.
The US formed ISIS to kill off Assad, Hezbollah helped defeat ISIS in Syria so again the US achieved less than nothing but unite the two countries.
If you actually believe Israel can defeat now 480 million really pissed off Arabs you are more delusional than the criminal fool Bibi.
‘If you actually believe Israel can defeat now 480 million really pissed off Arabs you are more delusional than the criminal fool Bibi.’
I see. As far as I understand it the article was talking about eliminating Hamas and hezbollah, not 480 million Arabs. I have to admit I haven’t crunched any numbers on that particular scenario so I’m not sure if I believe if Israel can defeat 480 million Arabs or not. I imagine that would be quite a challenge.
I am aware of the failures of various us foreign policies, I like to criticise them myself. If you take the time to read my comment again, before leaping off the let’s batter Israel and the US cliff, you will find it isn’t written to be pro israel, nor a declaration that they can defeat 480 million Arabs, but an objective deconstruction of the flaws in articles analysis.
(why is this in cyber space moderation)
My right to reply has been moderated.
I’m going back to my books. And my ink pen.
Israel is not at war with 480 million Arabs. Israel is defending itself against an imperial theocratic tyranny: Iran
But this much is clear: we will only see more death, destruction and suffering. Wars are easy to start but hard to end — and quickly spiral out of the control of those who initiate them.
Brilliant, just brilliant. And Rajan gets paid for this.
One thing did strike me in this “ analysis” . The mention of 40,000 Gazan fatalities. That is a large and awful number – but presumably must include the Hamas fighters – so not totally civilian. Furthermore it comprises about 2% of the total Gaza population ( of circa 2 million) – which might be nearer 1% with Hamas combatants excluded. In an all out “ modern” war – as dreadful as it is for the dead and their relatives – this seems relatively low to me. I shudder to think what the numbers of civilian Israeli deaths would have been if the tables were reversed. It also strikes me that the IDF must be operating in a manner aimed at minimising civilian wartime deaths. For me that sharply distinguishes them from the forces they are fighting.
Yes, the ritual intoning of 40,000 dead Gazans without any acknowledgement of the very large number – quite possibly a majority – who were Hamas operatives signals unmistakably that this is just another piece of crude – and genocidally antisemitic – propaganda. The kind of thing I would expect to read in The Guardian or the BBC website. Shame on UnHerd for publishing it.
There are known to be over 42,000 dead, over 75% of them are women and kids, the average age is 20, the average age of kids murdered is 5, babies were left to die in humidicribs in blown up hospitals, and arabs are semites, most jews are not, they are just Europeans. FAir dinkum you genocidal maniacs are not helping Israel with this garbage.
‘There are known to be over 42,000 dead, over 75% of them are women and kids,’
Have you got a source for those numbers?
There is the counter argument that actually Hamas are genocidal maniacs. They are in fact a terrorist organisation.
Regardless, in any conflict, hospitals and other civilian infrastructure should never be targeted. Israel has wiped Gaza’s civilian infrastructure off the face of the earth. They may “only” be 40k deaths but how many displaced? How many people are going to die as a result of the attacks? Incredulous.
I am sorry but the damage to civilian infrastructure ( ie schools, hospitals, food stores, colleges etc) would have been much less widespread if Hamas had not placed its military infrastructure in, next to and under it. Furthermore if the tunnels had been civilian air aid shelters ( did Hamas provide any?) the civilian death toll would have been much lower. I don’t think there is any moral equivalence between the sides when it comes to regard for civilians. Iran and the terrorists attack and murder them without hesitation. Israel seeks to protect its own and minimise harm even to those civilians supporting the terrorists. It’s the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship I guess.
What about the pagers blowing up in Lebanon? Do you think there was a concern for indiscriminate damage ?
Only Hezbollah (Iranian) terrorists were targeted.
Using allegedly civilian infrastructure for the military uses Hamas is documented, and confesses, to using them for is an actual war crime.
Do not place military sites near civilian ones. Democacies do not store munitions under hospitals and schools.
div > p:nth-of-type(2) > a”>“Thank You Israel!” Brigitte Gabriel THANKS Israel for Eliminating Hezbollah’s Leadership (youtube.com)
My moral philosophy is that we should perform right actions except when wrongs are the inevitable side-effects of these actions. So, in my view, attacking a terrorist organisation like Hamas is the right thing to do, but the inevitable unintended consequences, namely the deaths of tens of thousands of unarmed civilians, makes the overall action wrong. Dropping bombs on places where Hamas fighters reside knowing that in the process you will kill scores of civilans is wrong.
I am sorry but on that basis Europe would not have been freed from Nazi tyranny in 1944/5. Life is not the pursuit of set of unconstrained wishes it’s dealing with a set of sometimes difficult trade offs.
You’ll have to be more specific. I think the British carpet bombing of Dresden and other German cities was a moral outrage, and also the US dropping of nuclear bombs on Japan.
Unfortunately your moral philosophy fails in Muddle East context.
You basically propose that Israel doesn’t respond to any Hamas actions in case civilians are killed.
There is no country which leadership would accept this approach.
If Hamas and Hezbollah stopped attacking Israel there would be no civilian casualties.
I said in the certain case that civilans are killed, not in case civilians are killed. The bombing of Hamas is carried out in the certain knowledge that civilians will be killed.
Unherd seems to love anti-Semitism
Hmm…this reductive one-liner seems to contradict my observation above on the quality of Unherd comments.
Arabs are the largest group of semites, jews are mainly just Europeans. If you can’t even understand that you should say nothing at all.
If you’re talking about the Jews of Israel they are two thirds non-European.
Much as I despise Netanyahu, any analysis that calls the hostilities that started on October 7th “his”war, or that cites the end of the occupation in the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza as the hallmarks of Hamas’ ideology, is not grounded in reality. The notion that the actions of Netanyahu, or indeed of Israel in general, are the sole determinants of what is happening in the Middle East, might be ideologically comforting – if your belief is that Jews / the West are the source of all evil in the world – but, again, not grounded in reality. This analysis will not help you to understand the news that comes out of the Middle East.
On the other hand, if this is the best that can be produced by the Director of the Grand Strategy programme at Defense Priorities and senior research fellow at Columbia University, then all of a sudden, we do understand better the news that has been coming out of the Columbia University campus over the last year.
Cognitive dissonance is strong here.
“destroying Hamas entirely is all but impossible. It is a political movement with a distinctive ideology”
Yes. So was Nazism.
Supporters of which still exist and plot its return, ditto the KKK, ditto the ultra left anarchists.
This chap can’t be for real can he? How awful academia has become.
Personally, I think he is finally taking control of the war Iran started.
He lacked control so long as he was willing to allow himself to be handcuffed by the Biden administration. Seems he has concluded that he just does not care that much what Biden or Sullivan think.
The fact is, Israel may have revealed the Iranian regime for a paper tiger, a spoiled bully that in the end cannot take a punch and is a coward.
Iran has proved that it will not or cannot go all in supporting it’s proxies and has left them out to hang as Israel grinds them to pieces a bit at a time. Without the confidence that the Iranian’s will come to their aid, those proxies are going to be a lot less confident about challenging Israel and may well be bitter toward Iran.
I suspect that the Iranian regime has concerns that an all out war with Israel is not only not winnable but that it would put their very existence at risk. Too many Iranian’s would like to see that regime gone and it is hard to go all out fighting a foreign enemy while having to watch your back at home too. But the Mullah’s may find they have no choice, if they are humiliated by Israel by having their proxies wiped out they may lose the support they have from the military and the hard liners.
That said, I think that if the rest of the middle east, ex Syria, conclude that the Iranians are heavily weakened, if they smell blood in the water, they may just decide to throw in their support to get rid of the regime. Few hearts would be broken were the Mullah’s to be overthrown and Iran put in a box.
This is delusional, honestly you people have no brains.
Try to make an argument instead of posting childish ad hominem attacks.
Have read anything about Khomeini , especially on his views of women?
This article rather begs a question, namely that if these foes can’t be defeated and are satisfiable only by the destruction of Israel, what else are the Israelis actually supposed to do?
Netanyahu is a divisive figure but one thing he got right a long time ago: “If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel’”
This basic calculus hasn’t changed and I don’t think any critique of Israel’s conduct that fails to recognise this harsh reality is worth taking very seriously.
I wonder if Rajan Menon is auditioning for a role in Harris’s cabinet…if elected?
I see it more of US’s war with Iran.
Finally, well balanced and brave analysis, unafraid to call a spade a spade. A bit of humanity (just keep away from the comments)
The words of Golda Meir are as true today as when they were first spoken: if Arabs lay down their arms, there will be peace. If Israel lays down its arms, there will be no Israel.
Meir also called herself a Palestinian and history shows that athletic teams representing that area were full of Jews. That is no longer true as “Palestinian” has come to only apply to Muslims and Arabs.
“And his refusal to abandon it has created a rift between him and the most hawkish members of his cabinet ….” There’s got to be a better way to write this sentence that doesn’t say the opposite of what was intended.
The author has proven he has no real-world experience, this is his theory or he is being told what to write. No one controls the present wars, they just feed on themselves and what each country’s supporters can supply in the way of weapons and cash. There is no real end game, Israel is trying to survive, Iran and the rest are trying to eradicate Israel and the result is innocents are being slaughtered on both sides while the West wrings their hands. Just like the Ukraine.
This is what we have become, weak and ineffectual due to money and moral cowards in every position of leadership in the West. It is only going to get worse.
Like the war in Ukraine, the war in the Middle East has complex causes. Benjamin Netanyahu pursues too simplistic of solutions. He needs to stop the attacks on the Palestinians and stop picking fights with Hezbollah. Waging war and committing war crimes will not bring peace. Stop the fighting and stop the settlements.
“… more than 40,000 [Gazans] have been killed …”
Who says? Where did the author obtain this figure? I have read and heard that this huge figure is based on Hamas sources. I cannot accept this as a credible article when such figures are trotted out with no hint of attribution.
Most important the West are looking at this entirely from their own perspective
Which is firmly anchored in Neo Colonial Liberalism and the so called World Order which in reality
Is American Hegomony
Go look at what the Islamic world ,
The Global South , South and Central Asia have to say about Israel and it’s Western backers
Conclusion Israel is winning all the battles but no doubt it has lost the War
Go do the economic and population Arithmetic and it stares you in the face what the consequences to Israel ,America and it’s little lap dog Nations shall be
And that’s how you know this Hegomonic War is fast approaching end game
Menon barely mentions Iran’s absolutely central role in this drama for the very survival of Israel. Without Iran and its obsession with Israel there would be peace in the region and there would have been some accommodation with the Gazan Palestinians. Lebanon would be ruled by the historic mix of diverse Lebanese and not a Shiite militia. For a “grand strategist” Menon shows curiously little perspective. He illuminates the campus climate at Columbia University more than the security climate in the Middle East.
I’ll stick to reading what you have to say about Russia.