Israel... The Power Elites Face the "Generals of Arrogance"
- Fleeing the end of the occupation and refusing to withdraw from Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria... They consider this a “central achievement.”
- Most view the end of the occupation as a concession to Israel’s security... making it taboo to discuss.
- Israel and the United States stand at a crossroads between moving toward a comprehensive settlement and continuing the conflict, risking the loss of their strategic alliance.
- Emmanuel: Ending the occupation according to the Arab initiative... recognition, normalization, and peace. “What more do you want?”
- The Israeli opposition... the cowardice of the generals and blind force.
The political and security landscape in Israel today is shaped by a glaring paradox as the date for the upcoming Knesset elections on October 28 approaches. While the occupation expands in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, and the extremist far-right led by Benjamin Netanyahu, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and Bezalel Smotrich clings to power as if it were war booty, the Israeli opposition—led by generals obsessed with power and military arrogance—has retreated into a cowardly position that avoids addressing the core issue: the occupation itself.
In a scene worthy of an absurd play, the fascists and generals compete to offer the most hardline promises, forgetting that the era of “absolute victory” through military force has passed, and that the entire region can no longer tolerate the illusions of regional dominance and the “Greater Israel” projects promoted by the far-right. In Gaza, the occupation continues its crimes against civilians; in Lebanon, religious and civil heritage is being destroyed; and in Syria, occupation militias are expanding under the guise of “security.”
Here arises the most pressing question: Does Israel realize that continuing its occupation of Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian lands is not merely a strategic error, but a political suicide that threatens its future as a state and places its strategic alliance with Washington on the brink of collapse? Or does the extremist far-right, in collusion with a cowardly opposition, insist on dragging the entire region into a comprehensive regional war in a desperate attempt to compensate for their military and humanitarian failures?
In a notable analysis published by Haaretz, military analyst Amos Harel reveals that Israel deliberately refrains from implementing withdrawal agreements from the occupied areas in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza, due to “its inability to achieve an absolute victory or resolution on any front.”
Even more alarming is that decision-makers hold up this occupation as Israel’s “central achievement”—as if controlling lands that do not belong to them and violating the lives of peoples could serve as a substitute for the victory they failed to achieve.
Harel emphasizes that it is “not comfortable for the Netanyahu government to carry out such withdrawals on the eve of the Knesset elections,” a clear reference to the fact that calculations for staying in power override any moral or strategic considerations. The paradox deepens as the far-right views clinging to the occupation not merely as a military choice, but as a religious and political doctrine that brooks no debate, while the administration of President Donald Trump—whose patience is running out—signals halting Israeli war crimes and imposing the 15-point plan proposed by the Peace Council.
In this context, the warning from Ram Emanuel—a prominent supporter of Israel and a potential presidential candidate in the 2028 U.S. elections—exposes the depth of the crisis. In a speech delivered in Tel Aviv, Emanuel warned that Israel’s current policy “is not politically sustainable,” calling for an end to unconditional military support for Israel.
He criticized what he described as “the traditional US policy of unconditional support without conditions or consequences,” arguing that it “has created a prime minister who believes he can pursue his strategic interests without regard for American concerns.”
He bases this on the Arab League initiative—which comprises 57 Islamic countries—that offers Israel recognition, normalization, and comprehensive peace in exchange for ending the occupation. Emmanuel asks, with biting sarcasm, “What more do you want?”
In an analysis published in Haaretz titled “It Is Time for Opposition Leaders to Show They Are Fit to Lead and Address the Thorny Issue: Occupation,” writer Uri Bar-Yosef sheds light on a disturbing phenomenon: opposition leaders systematically avoid delving into the issue of occupation during the election campaign, claiming that “most Israelis view ending the occupation as a concession to Israel’s security, and therefore it is taboo to discuss it.”
Naftali Bennett believes that solving security problems lies in a normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia that can be achieved without establishing a Palestinian state—as if normalization could buy security without addressing the root causes of the conflict.
Benny Gantz argues that security rests on a strong security pillar and a pillar of democratic and liberal values—forgetting that democracy cannot be built on the ruins of Palestinian rights.
Yair Lapid clarified that the path to security lies in separation from the Palestinians, although he did not explicitly use the word “occupation”—as if separation could erase the reality of the existing occupation.
As for the right-wing, their solutions differed in wording but were identical in their racist spirit. Ben Gvir called for “encouraging Palestinians to emigrate from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank,” while Smotrich believed that the key to security lay in Jabotinsky’s “Iron Wall” logic—a logic based on blind force and disguised ethnic cleansing.
Michael Milstein, a researcher at Tel Aviv University’s Dayan Center, provides a deeper analysis of this phenomenon in Yedioth Ahronoth, arguing that “in the absence of Israel’s ability to demonstrate absolute victory or resolution on any front, the concept of controlling the territory has become the central achievement touted by decision-makers.”
He warns that the October 7, 2023, attack did not occur because the army was not deployed along the current lines, but due to “confidence bordering on arrogance, intellectual stagnation, and contempt for the Palestinian enemy.”
Milstein points to the development of “evils” resulting from the rigid stay in the occupied territories, such as the systematic killings in Gaza, indifference to the targeting of civilians—women and children—the destruction of Christian religious sites in Lebanon, and declining obedience within the Israeli army.
He predicts that this situation will lead to a “war of attrition inside or at the borders of the occupied security zones in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria—the Three”—a war that will devour all in its path and can only be halted by a bold political settlement.
In this context, Bar-Yosef notes that Nancy Pelosi, one of the most prominent supporters in the US Congress for ending military aid, has generally heightened tensions due to her positions. He recalls that “growing global revulsion toward occupation is turning Israel into a pariah and isolated state”—a warning no less dangerous than military threats, as international isolation will strip Israel of its moral and political legitimacy and make it vulnerable to international sanctions that could threaten its very existence.
In Gaza, civilians are slaughtered beneath the rubble of homes bombed by Israeli aircraft; in Lebanon, churches and mosques are destroyed in a scene that reflects the extreme racism of the occupation; and in Tel Aviv, fascists and generals vie to offer the most hardline promises, while the far right dangles the occupation of Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian territories as a “central achievement”—as if controlling the lives of peoples could be a cause for pride in the twenty-first century!
In Washington, liberal supporters offer their unconditional backing to Israel as if it were a sacred cause, while Emmanuel—the potential presidential candidate—warns that the current policy “is not politically sustainable.” He presents the 23-state solution based on the Arab Peace Initiative—57 Muslim states in exchange for withdrawal and an end to the occupation—and asks with biting sarcasm: “What more do you want?”
Does Israel realize that continuing its occupation places it at a critical crossroads between moving toward a comprehensive settlement based on the Arab Peace Initiative, and persisting in conflict, losing its strategic alliance with the United States, and becoming a pariah state internationally isolated?
At this historic moment, Israel faces a binary choice: either withdraw from the occupied territories and engage in a comprehensive regional peace that recognizes the rights of peoples, or continue in the illusions of expansion and territorial aggrandizement driven by the extreme far-right, which will drag the entire region into a comprehensive regional war from which no one will be spared. Worse still, this second option will place Israel in a historic confrontation with its strategic alliance with Washington, stripping it of any moral or political legitimacy and leaving it alone to face the anger of the region and the world.
