Netanyahu’s election gamble may be costly for Israel
The Lebanese group Hezbollah on Sunday struck an Israeli military base near the border town of Avivim. The Lebanese attack came as an inevitable response to a series of Israeli strikesthat targeted four different Arab countries in just two days.
The Lebanese response shows that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may have overplayed his cards. However, for Netanyahu, it was a worthy gamble, as the Israeli leader is desperate for any new political capital that could shield him against increasingly emboldened contenders in the country’s Sept. 17general election.
A fundamental question that could influence any analysis of the decision to strike Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza is whether the strategy originated from the Israeli government or the limited personal calculations of Netanyahu himself. I contend that the latter is true.
Israel has already violated the sovereignty of all of these countries, bombing some of them hundreds of times in the past, but striking all at once isunprecedented. Since neither Israel nor its US allies offered any convincing military logic behind the campaign, there can be no other conclusion than that the objectives were entirely political.
One obvious sign that the attacks were meant to benefit Netanyahu, and Netanyahu only, is the fact that the PM violated an old Israeli protocol ofstaying mumfollowing this type of cross-border violence. It is uncommon for top Israeli officials to brag about their country’s intelligence outreach and military capabilities. Israel, for example, hasbombed Syriahundreds of times in recent years, yet rarely taken responsibility for any of these attacks. Compare this with Netanyahu’s remarks following the two-day strikes of Aug. 24 and 25: Only minutes after the Israeli strikes, Netanyahu hailed the army’s “major operational effort,” declaring that “Iran has no immunity anywhere.”
Regarding the attack on the southeast Syrian region of Aqraba, Netanyahu went into detail, describing the nature of the target and the identities of the enemy. Two of the Hezbollah fighters killed in Syria were identified by the Israeli army, which distributed photographs of them allegedly traveling on the Iranian airline, Mahan, “which Israel and the United States have identified as a major transporter of weaponry and materiel to Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies in Syria and Lebanon,”accordingto the Times of Israel.
Why would Israel go to this extent, which will surely help the targeted countries in uncovering some of Israel’s intelligence sources? The Economistrevealedthat “some… in Israel’s security and political establishments are uncomfortable” with Netanyahu’s tireless extolling of “Israel’s intelligence-gathering and operational successes in surprising detail.”
Holding two general elections within such a short period of time demonstrates Netanyahu’s faltering grip on power.
Ramzy Baroud
The explanation lies in one single phrase: The Sept. 17 elections.
In recent months, Netanyahu has finally managed to take the title of the country’slongest-servingprime minister — a designation he has earned despite his checkered legacy, which is dotted with abuses of power, self-serving agendas and several major corruption cases that rope in Netanyahu directly, along with his wife and closest aides.
However, it remains unclear whether Netanyahu can hang on for much longer. Following the April 9 elections, the embattled Israeli leader tried to form a government of like-minded right-wing politicians, butfailed. It was this setback that caused the dissolution of the Israeli Knesset on May 29 and the call for a new election. While Israeli politics is typically turbulent, holding two general elections within such a short period of time is very rare, and, among other things, it demonstrates Netanyahu’s faltering grip on power.
Equally important is that, for the first time in years, Netanyahu and his Likud party are facing real competition. These rivals, led by Benny Gantz of the Blue and White centrist party, are keen on taking the votes of Netanyahu’s every possible constituency, including his pro-settlement, pro-war supporters.
Statements made by Gantz in recent months are hardly consistent with the presumed ideological discourse of the political center. The former chief of general staff of the Israeli army is a strong supporter of illegal Jewish settlements and an avid promoter of war on Gaza. In June, Gantz went as far asaccusingNetanyahu of diminishing Israel’s deterrence policy in Gaza, which is being interpreted by Iran as a sign of weakness.
In fact, the terms “weak” or “weakness” have repeatedly been ascribed to Netanyahu by his political rivals, including top officials within his own right-wing camp. The man who has staked his reputation on unhindered violence in the name of Israeli security is now struggling to protect his image.
This analysis does not in any way discount the regional and international objectives of Netanyahu’s calculations; leading among them his desire to stifle any political dialogue between Tehran and Washington — an idea that began taking shape at theG7 summitin Biarritz, France, last week. But even that is insufficient to offer a rounded understanding of Netanyahu’s motives, especially because the Israeli leader is wholly focused on his own survival, as opposed to future regional scenarios.
However, the “Mr. Security” credentials that Netanyahu aimed to achieve by bombing multiple targets in four countries might not yield the desired dividends. The Israeli media is conveying a sense of panic among Israelis, especially those living in the northern parts of the country and in illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied Golan Heights.
This is hardly the strong and mighty image that Netanyahu was hoping to convey through his military gamble. None of the thousands of Israelis who are currently being trained to survive Lebanese retaliations are particularity reassured regarding the power of their country.
Netanyahu is, of course, not the first Israeli leader to use the military to achieve domestic political ends. Shimon Peres did soin 1996 but failed miserably, killing more than 100 Lebanese and UN peacekeepers in the southern Lebanese village of Qana.
Netanyahu might pay a higher price for his gamble than simply losing the elections. A multi-front war is a conflict that Israel cannot win, at least not any more.
- Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of Palestine Chronicle. His latest book is “The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story” (Pluto Press, London). Baroud has a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter. Twitter: @RamzyBaroud
