Geostrategic Media Political Commentary, Analysis, Security, Defense
Dr. Shehab Al-Makahleh
The Genesis of a Doctrine
In 1978, a 28-year-old Benjamin Netanyahu—then operating under the Americanized appellation “Ben Nitai”—stood before an assembly in Boston and articulated what would become the animating principle of his political existence. “The obstacle to peace,” he declared with crystalline clarity, “is this demand for a state for the Palestine Liberation Organization.”
Nearly half a century hence, that foundational premise has been actualized with a precision that borders on the apocalyptic. Netanyahu has consecrated his political career to the systematic delegitimization and dismantlement of the Oslo framework—first as the implacable antagonist of Yitzhak Rabin’s peace overtures, subsequently as Rabin’s successor in the wake of his assassination, and later as the primary obstructionist to successive American administrations’ mediatory efforts. The Obama-era negotiations were methodically undermined, the Kerry initiative of 2013 was permitted to expire through calculated inertia, and by 2015, Netanyahu had abandoned even the ceremonial pretense of diplomatic engagement, proclaiming with unvarnished candor: “There will be no Palestinian state under my watch.”
The intervening decade has witnessed the progressive suffocation of the Palestinian Authority—Israel’s ostensible “partner for peace”—through fiscal strangulation and political delegitimization, while successive Netanyahu governments have implanted settlements with escalating audacity into the territorial heartland of any prospective Palestinian state, rendering partition increasingly impracticable and violence progressively inexorable. His current coalition, assembled in 2022, incorporates elements so radically extremist that they were until recently consigned to the periphery of Israeli political discourse—factions that openly advocate for the recolonization of Gaza and Syria, and articulate ambitions that constitute nothing less than ethnic cleansing.
The Anatomy of a Catastrophic Miscalculation
Netanyahu’s prosecution of the Gaza war reveals an objective that is simultaneously transparent and strategically self-defeating: the absolute prohibition of any Palestinian moderate presence—particularly the Palestinian Authority—from establishing a foothold in the enclave, even if this necessitates the perpetuation of Hamas’s dominance. Israel has rebuffed multiple proposals for international stabilization forces that would have facilitated reconstruction and disarmament, precisely because they incorporated steps toward Palestinian sovereignty. When Hamas itself proposed ceding administrative control to the Palestinian Authority, Netanyahu dismissed the overture with peremptory contempt.
This obstructionist policy—which Netanyahu is presently rearticulating to Trump administration officials in Washington—was never predicated on a viable alternative. Its viability has always depended on obscuring its fundamental vacuity. Yet the bankruptcy of Netanyahu’s Palestinian strategy has now been exposed with devastating clarity. Israel has failed in Gaza, embroiled itself in Lebanon, inflamed the entire region, and precipitated global economic disruption through its provocation of American entanglement in the Gulf. Iran appears to have emerged with the strategic upper hand, while Israel finds itself more diplomatically isolated than at any juncture in its history.
This constitutes an unprecedented strategic debacle. Yet a more favorable outcome remains theoretically attainable—but only through the acknowledgment of Netanyahu’s approach as the primary architect of the current predicament, and its categorical supersession.
The Ideological Architecture of Perpetual Stasis
Netanyahu’s foundational orientation toward the conflict can be distilled to a single, implacable formulation: the status quo today is the status quo tomorrow, and the status quo in perpetuity.
Despite his tactical accommodation of the far-right’s annexationist fantasies, Netanyahu has never genuinely internalized them. He remains too pragmatic, too secular—too fundamentally a creature of political realism—to countenance the messianic delusions that animate the “Greater Israel” zealots, those Jewish supremacists who believe that through sufficient violence and a modicum of divine intervention, Palestinians can be coerced into accepting their subjugation as non-citizen subjects within their own ancestral territories.
Netanyahu comprehends the utility of their support without sharing their millenarian convictions. Despite the discursive prevalence of annexationist rhetoric, his governments have never seriously advanced a formal proposal for West Bank annexation, let alone Gaza, notwithstanding relentless pressure from his electoral base.
His approach rests upon two interlocking assumptions: that the status quo is preferable to any conceivable alternative, and that the status quo is, in fact, stable. The alternative—territorial partition—is, from Netanyahu’s perspective, functionally equivalent to Israel’s existential dissolution, a conviction forged during an era when Jordan and Iraq still constituted significant military threats. Having concluded that no viable two-state solution exists, he clings to the existing arrangements with the desperate tenacity of a man who recognizes that the walls are inexorably closing.
This is the strategic expression of Netanyahu’s “conflict management” doctrine—a formulation that is not predicated on the recognition that resolution is currently impossible, as many assume, but on the conviction that it is altogether unnecessary.
As Netanyahu’s former aide and subsequent rival Naftali Bennett once characterized it, the Palestinian issue represents “shrapnel in the buttocks”—undeniably irritating but not fundamentally threatening. Through a calibrated combination of coercive force and sophisticated administrative tactics, Israel could theoretically maintain control over millions of dispossessed Palestinians indefinitely. These tactics center on partitioning Palestine into fragmented enclaves in the West Bank governed by a perpetually enfeebled Palestinian Authority, alongside a carceral strip in Gaza controlled by Hamas, contained through an unstable equilibrium of Qatari financial infusions and periodic Israeli military campaigns.
The International Complicity in Strategic Delusion
The international community, for over a decade, demonstrated a remarkable willingness to accommodate these assumptions. Western diplomats, foreign ministers, and even heads of state were prepared to acquiesce in the progressive erosion of the two-state framework. In December 2016, John Kerry announced that the two-state solution was in “serious jeopardy” and that the peace process was effectively moribund—a statement that effectively marked the transition from peacemaking to conflict management. The subsequent Trump administration explicitly abandoned the traditional two-state framework, substituting it with the “Peace for Prosperity” initiative, which effectively traded Palestinian political independence for economic investment. Even the Biden administration never seriously agitated for a resumption of negotiations, declaring “conditions are not favorable.” European nations and the majority of Arab states followed Washington’s lead, formally reaffirming their commitment to the two-state solution while expending no meaningful effort toward its realization.
After decades of failed initiatives and shattered hopes, many experienced a palpable sense of relief at the prospect of ignoring an intractable conflict. The peace process devolved from actionable plan to empty formula. Intellectuals and commentators retreated from the complexities of political reality, entertaining “creative” solutions and “conceptual” frameworks that bore no relationship to the conditions on the ground. The two-state solution—stale but substantively sound—was abandoned for the mirage of a “binational state.” The Palestinian issue was effectively consigned to the archival shelf for an entire decade.
October 7 and the Shattering of Illusions
These delusions were annihilated with devastating finality on October 7, 2023.
Hamas’s surprise offensive constituted irrefutable evidence that the conflict could be postponed but never interred—that it was fundamentally resistant to the stasis Netanyahu had prescribed. The traumatic collapse of the stability illusion unleashed an orgy of aggression within Israel, and with the support of a paralyzed American administration, Israel elected to exact vengeance upon Gaza’s civilian population rather than systematically neutralize the threat Hamas posed.
This represented a profound and dangerous departure from Israel’s historical approach to security. Since its founding, Israel had confronted adversaries who categorically rejected its right to exist. David Ben-Gurion, the state’s architect, had prepared the nascent nation for multi-front warfare, recognizing that its enemies would attack from all directions. His successors all prioritized security above all else, understanding the imperative of military supremacy while simultaneously recognizing that force alone could not guarantee Israel’s safety. In a hostile Middle Eastern environment, military power was indispensable—but the ultimate objective remained integration and peaceful coexistence.
The most articulate expression of this orientation emerged from Revisionist Zionism, the ideological milieu in which Netanyahu was raised. His father was a disciple of Ze’ev Jabotinsky, who in 1923 published his seminal essay “The Iron Wall.” Jabotinsky declared that Zionism’s objectives could only be achieved on the basis of equality and peace with Palestine’s Arabs. Overcoming their natural hostility required the construction of an “iron wall” of Jewish power that would extinguish any hope of destroying Jewish nationalism. Once such ambitions evaporated, moderate voices would emerge and agreements would become possible.
Israel repeatedly failed to honor these principles, consistently privileging territorial expansion and ethnic dominance over the possibilities of peace. What distinguishes Netanyahu and his extremist coalition is the categorical rejection of even pursuing that goal.
Jabotinsky and Ben-Gurion both longed for a future when the two peoples could “live together in peace as good neighbors,” as the former articulated. Netanyahu’s political rationale has been to eliminate any possibility of such an outcome.
When his stagnation strategy produced the bloodiest day for Jews since the Holocaust, the desperate Netanyahu—surrounded by discredited security chiefs—resorted to unbridled brutality. A former Shin Bet director confided to me days after the massacre that there is nothing more dangerous than generals whose pride has been wounded. That wounded pride rapidly crystallized into strategic doctrine: eliminate every threat, destroy every enemy, and deploy maximum force for maximum duration until every adversary is annihilated.
The “New Middle East” as Regional Predation
During the Oslo era, Shimon Peres spoke rhapsodically of a “new Middle East” dawning. Netanyahu and his allies mocked Peres as a naive fantasist. But since October 7, they have appropriated the same terminology—with a crucial and telling distinction.
Their “new Middle East” does not envision Israel as an innocent lamb peacefully cohabiting among wolves. It envisions Israel as the regional wolf itself. Unconstrained by international law, indifferent to the rights and interests of others, and uninhibited by conventional morality, Israel imposes itself as the dominant regional power through unrestrained military aggression.
Unsurprisingly, the substitution of strategy with indiscriminate attack has produced a comprehensive catastrophe. Despite the appalling human toll and material destruction in Gaza, Hamas remains the preeminent force in the strip. Hezbollah continues to target northern Israel, inflicting daily casualties on Israeli forces.
This failure has intensified Netanyahu’s fixation on attacking Iran. The Islamic Republic provides him with a convenient justification for his failures. If his promise of “total victory” falters, it is because the “head of the octopus”—as he characterizes Iran—remains intact. Iran is the ultimate threat, and the only appropriate response to such threats is their obliteration through aerial bombardment.
The elimination of Iran represents Netanyahu’s escape route from the dead end to which he has led Israel. Decapitating the octopus will paralyze its tentacles and pave the way for a return to the status quo he so desperately craves. With their Iranian patrons neutralized, the forces confronting Israel will be incapacitated, allowing it to perpetuate its occupation without impediment.
A year after the September 11 attacks, Netanyahu addressed Congress with characteristic confidence: “If you eliminate Saddam, if you eliminate Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.” There were reverberations indeed—but few were positive. He is now promoting the identical approach toward Iran. The only reason similarly catastrophic consequences have not yet manifested is that the attempt has not succeeded. The Iranian regime has proven more resilient than Netanyahu and President Trump anticipate—and will likely emerge from the conflict stronger than when it entered.
The Path Not Taken
The catastrophic failure in the Gulf compels a reconsideration of the road not traveled—the alternative that Netanyahu’s strategy was meticulously designed to foreclose.
In 2002, all 22 members of the Arab League unanimously adopted the Arab Peace Initiative, proposing comprehensive normalization with Israel in exchange for complete withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967 and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. This proposal—reaffirmed repeatedly over subsequent decades—represented a historic breakthrough that could have provided a framework for a coalition of relatively moderate regional powers, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates. Such an alliance remains the most viable mechanism for curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and confronting other extremist actors throughout the region.
Israel has essentially rejected the initiative in its entirety. Some of the most violent attacks of the Second Intifada were convulsing Israeli cities when the initiative was announced—the timing could have been more propitious. But despite numerous difficult upheavals, the initiative has not been withdrawn for nearly a quarter-century. When Trump announced his “Peace for Prosperity” plan in 2020—another fanciful venture encouraged by Netanyahu—the Arab League reaffirmed the Arab Peace Initiative as the only viable framework. Even after the catastrophic destruction in Gaza, Arab leaders proposed reactivating the initiative. The Israeli prime minister offered only formal acknowledgment, describing it as containing “positive elements,” but refused to engage substantively.
There could be no more perfect expression of the Iron Wall doctrine than the Arab Peace Initiative. Why then does it receive no acceptance in Israeli political discourse? As any observer of Israeli affairs understands, the intuitive answer lies in the demand to terminate Israeli control over the West Bank and replace it with Palestinian self-governance.
Although the overwhelming majority of Israeli security experts acknowledge that partition represents the only viable long-term solution, Netanyahu’s policies of delegitimizing the Palestinian cause have rendered public articulation of this position a form of social and professional suicide. After years of exhaustive centrism constructed on deliberate avoidance of the Palestinian issue, barely anyone in the opposition dares to mention the Palestinian state publicly—even though many support it privately. This is a cause, not a consequence, of the shift in public opinion away from the two-state solution.
Israel’s obsession with occupying and settling Palestinian territory dictates its categorical rejection of any opportunity for peace and integration. This has transformed Israel into a rogue state, systematically destabilizing its environs and self-destructing in the process.
The Regional Imperative and the Global Stake
Certainly, opposition to Israel’s existence does not derive exclusively from the Palestinian predicament. The Islamic Republic’s hostility toward the Jewish state is unlikely to dissipate with resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—nor is the enmity of other extremist actors throughout the region, including Hezbollah, the Houthis, and militant Palestinian factions, whether nationalist or Islamist. Just as Palestinian violence will not likely extinguish the ambitions of ethnic supremacy among some Israelis. Nevertheless, resolving the Palestinian issue remains the most decisive condition for regional stabilization.
The reverberations of October 7—which drew the United States into direct conflict and disrupted the global economy—constitute a stark reminder that this is not a provincial matter. The region, shaped by factions as much as by national boundaries, resembles Serbia in 1914 more than Yugoslavia in 1990. Everything originates locally, but nothing remains local—particularly warfare.
Now, the conflict is convulsing the region and echoing around the world—from gasoline stations in California to school closures in the Philippines, to NATO’s strategic posture and the Falkland Islands. Israel’s intransigence is dragging its allies and neighbors toward the abyss, disrupting global trade and destabilizing an already fragile international order.
None of this would have occurred without active support and facilitation from Washington and Europe. Whether through commission or omission, pandering to Israeli nationalist hysteria during Netanyahu’s tenure has contributed to the extinction of Israel’s peace camp, facilitating Netanyahu’s stranglehold on Israeli public opinion to the extent that even his rivals dare not challenge his failed national security approach. Netanyahu’s bullying of every regional actor—friend or foe—has undermined Israel’s security, diminished its international standing, and shattered its moral credibility. The doctrine that has taken root in the Israeli psyche following October 7—that all threats can and must be eliminated through force alone—is driving Israel toward intensification, generating hostility faster than it can suppress it. This is a reality we hope Israelis will recognize as the country approaches autumn elections.
The Necessity of Radical Revision
None of this is inevitable. But achieving a different outcome requires a radically different approach.
First, the bilateral framework must be superseded by a regional one. This should not mean expanding the Abraham Accords—which were nothing more than a failed attempt to circumvent the Palestinian issue. A regional approach must prioritize Palestine, attracting regional states to provide necessary pressure and credible security guarantees for both parties. This applies to both the negotiation process and the substance of any potential agreement.
The regional framework remains the only viable means to overcome the principal obstacle: providing guarantees that do not depend on mutual trust. After the trauma of October 7 and the brutality inflicted on Gaza, Israelis and Palestinians have no appetite for discussions of peace. But the ongoing deadlock—and the recognition that the current policy of maximum aggression has achieved nothing—will inevitably precipitate a moment of reckoning.
The “Greater Israel” ideology remains alien to most Israelis. If they oppose Palestinian liberation, it is because they have been convinced it poses an existential threat to their security. The alternative is not a return to the illusory stability of managed conflict or the fantasy of a binational state. Those options expired on October 7.
Continuing on the current trajectory means deeper entrenchment of division, widening confrontation, and an inevitable—and prohibitively costly—realization that no quantity of firepower can erase what must ultimately be negotiated.
The Reckoning to Come
The conflict, like an ancient sin or a chronic pathology, manifests with escalating violence the more it is suppressed. The question is not whether the moment of reckoning will arrive—but whether it will come through deliberate design or through catastrophic implosion.
