In a surprise shootout in Rafah, Israeli forces killed Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, raising hopes among Western commentators that this might open the door to an end to the ongoing war in Gaza. However, those familiar with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's political motivations and strategy suggest otherwise. Many analysts believe Netanyahu will continue to seek pretexts to keep Israel at war, leveraging the situation for both personal and political gains.
Netanyahu’s Political Struggles
Netanyahu’s grip on power has been tenuous in recent years due to ongoing legal battles that threaten his political survival. Charged with fraud, bribery, and breach of trust in 2019, Netanyahu risks facing up to 10 years in prison if convicted. These charges stem from allegations that he offered favors to media tycoons in exchange for positive press coverage.
In the face of these legal battles, Netanyahu's political strategy has been clear: consolidate power and weaken the judiciary to protect himself from potential consequences. After being re-elected in 2020 for a fifth term, his far-right coalition swiftly introduced laws designed to curtail the judiciary's independence, giving the government more control over appointing judges and limiting court oversight.
Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been building a case against Netanyahu for his role in atrocities committed in Gaza, with ICC prosecutor Karim Khan requesting an arrest warrant. This looming legal pressure adds a personal dimension to Netanyahu’s decision to continue the war, as analysts argue that maintaining a state of conflict helps him retain control over the Israeli public.
In the face of these legal battles, Netanyahu's political strategy has been clear: consolidate power and weaken the judiciary to protect himself from potential consequences. After being re-elected in 2020 for a fifth term, his far-right coalition swiftly introduced laws designed to curtail the judiciary's independence, giving the government more control over appointing judges and limiting court oversight.
Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been building a case against Netanyahu for his role in atrocities committed in Gaza, with ICC prosecutor Karim Khan requesting an arrest warrant. This looming legal pressure adds a personal dimension to Netanyahu’s decision to continue the war, as analysts argue that maintaining a state of conflict helps him retain control over the Israeli public.
Endless Conflict as a Political Tool
Diana Buttu, an expert on the Israel-Palestine conflict, explains that Netanyahu’s strategy revolves around perpetuating a sense of insecurity among Israelis, convincing them that the nation is in a constant state of siege. This, she argues, is his method of controlling the populace and staying in power. "He wants to make Israelis believe that they are under a state of siege or war … That’s his way of controlling them and staying in power," Buttu told Al Jazeera.
This was evident even when a Hezbollah drone reportedly attacked Netanyahu’s home in Caesarea shortly before Sinwar's death. Instead of framing the incident as part of the broader regional conflict, Netanyahu deflected by blaming "Iran’s agents," which some analysts interpreted as an attempt to justify expanding the war beyond Gaza, potentially drawing in Iran.
This tactic is not new. Israel’s military response has long been the default option, as political solutions to the Israel-Palestine conflict have been persistently obstructed. Even when Israel withdrew its military presence from Gaza in 2005, the move had little to do with conceding territory for a Palestinian state. Instead, Ariel Sharon, the prime minister at the time, saw the settlements in Gaza as an unnecessary security burden, preferring to focus on expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
As a result, Israel has remained locked in a permanent state of conflict, preferring military action to diplomacy. This approach has left little room for a political resolution and has exacerbated the cycle of violence in Gaza and beyond.
This was evident even when a Hezbollah drone reportedly attacked Netanyahu’s home in Caesarea shortly before Sinwar's death. Instead of framing the incident as part of the broader regional conflict, Netanyahu deflected by blaming "Iran’s agents," which some analysts interpreted as an attempt to justify expanding the war beyond Gaza, potentially drawing in Iran.
This tactic is not new. Israel’s military response has long been the default option, as political solutions to the Israel-Palestine conflict have been persistently obstructed. Even when Israel withdrew its military presence from Gaza in 2005, the move had little to do with conceding territory for a Palestinian state. Instead, Ariel Sharon, the prime minister at the time, saw the settlements in Gaza as an unnecessary security burden, preferring to focus on expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
As a result, Israel has remained locked in a permanent state of conflict, preferring military action to diplomacy. This approach has left little room for a political resolution and has exacerbated the cycle of violence in Gaza and beyond.
The Death of Sinwar: A Short-Lived Victory?
The killing of Yahya Sinwar, Israel's "number one enemy," might seem like a turning point, but it is unlikely to alter Israel's long-term strategy. Omar Rahman, a visiting fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, notes that Sinwar’s death does little to change Netanyahu’s goal of depopulating and destroying Gaza.
Rahman explains that the underlying reasons for Palestinian resistance, rooted in decades of Israeli occupation and dispossession, remain unaddressed. "The underlying grievances [of Palestinians] are not being addressed … therefore the resistance to Israeli dispossession will continue," Rahman said.
This sentiment is echoed by Buttu, who emphasizes that even with the elimination of top Hamas leaders, the broader resistance will persist. After all, Israel has a history of assassinating Palestinian leaders without fundamentally changing the dynamics of the conflict. One notable example is the assassination of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 2004. Despite Israel’s attempts to dismantle Hamas, the group grew stronger and even won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections.
Rahman explains that the underlying reasons for Palestinian resistance, rooted in decades of Israeli occupation and dispossession, remain unaddressed. "The underlying grievances [of Palestinians] are not being addressed … therefore the resistance to Israeli dispossession will continue," Rahman said.
This sentiment is echoed by Buttu, who emphasizes that even with the elimination of top Hamas leaders, the broader resistance will persist. After all, Israel has a history of assassinating Palestinian leaders without fundamentally changing the dynamics of the conflict. One notable example is the assassination of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 2004. Despite Israel’s attempts to dismantle Hamas, the group grew stronger and even won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections.
War as a Political Necessity
In Netanyahu’s view, the war on Gaza must continue. He has obstructed several ceasefire attempts since the war began, despite pressure from Israel’s key ally, the United States. His justification for continuing the war, he claims, is the need to "rescue the remaining Israeli captives" and neutralize threats from Hezbollah in Lebanon, where Israel has opened a second front.
However, critics argue that Netanyahu’s true motivation lies in his desire to stay in power. By keeping Israel in a state of war, he can continue to rally support from the far-right factions of Israeli society, who advocate for total victory and expansionist policies. The killing of Sinwar may satisfy these groups for now, but it is unlikely to be enough in the long term.
As Israeli political commentator Oren Ziv observed, Netanyahu’s supporters are like "drug addicts," always seeking more war and more violence. "The death of Sinwar is a dose for now, but it won’t satisfy the right-wing public or the government [in the long term]. They are looking for more killing and more war," Ziv told Al Jazeera.
However, critics argue that Netanyahu’s true motivation lies in his desire to stay in power. By keeping Israel in a state of war, he can continue to rally support from the far-right factions of Israeli society, who advocate for total victory and expansionist policies. The killing of Sinwar may satisfy these groups for now, but it is unlikely to be enough in the long term.
As Israeli political commentator Oren Ziv observed, Netanyahu’s supporters are like "drug addicts," always seeking more war and more violence. "The death of Sinwar is a dose for now, but it won’t satisfy the right-wing public or the government [in the long term]. They are looking for more killing and more war," Ziv told Al Jazeera.
A Cycle of Violence
The cycle of violence in Gaza has deep roots. Since 2007, the Israeli-imposed siege has reduced the territory to what many observers call "the world’s largest open-air prison." The standard of living in Gaza has deteriorated dramatically, and the ongoing war has only exacerbated the suffering of the population.
While Sinwar’s death may weaken Hamas in the short term, the group operates with a decentralized leadership structure, meaning that its ability to continue resisting Israeli occupation will likely persist. Moreover, even if Hamas were to be completely destroyed, the grievances that fuel Palestinian resistance would remain. The total destruction of Gaza would only further inflame Palestinian anger and fuel continued resistance against Israeli occupation.
While Sinwar’s death may weaken Hamas in the short term, the group operates with a decentralized leadership structure, meaning that its ability to continue resisting Israeli occupation will likely persist. Moreover, even if Hamas were to be completely destroyed, the grievances that fuel Palestinian resistance would remain. The total destruction of Gaza would only further inflame Palestinian anger and fuel continued resistance against Israeli occupation.
Comments
Post a Comment