8/8/2024–|Last update: 8/8/202411:15 PM (Makkah Time)
Two political analysts agreed that Israel is not ready at all levels to wage a comprehensive regional war despite its political leadership’s assertion to the contrary, while one of them linked the Prime Minister’s apology Benjamin Netanyahu About the occurrence October 7 attacks By insisting on not accepting a deal to end the war on Gaza strip.
Netanyahu had announced in an interview with the American magazine “Time” that he apologized for the October 7 attacks (the Battle of… Al-Aqsa Flood), and his deep regret “that something like this happened,” considering that his basic mistake was to yield to the Security Cabinet’s hesitation to launch a comprehensive war.
Netanyahu stressed that Israel is prepared to enter into a comprehensive regional war despite describing it as risky, which contradicts the recommendations of Israeli security and military leaders to seek to avoid any escalation that might lead to a comprehensive war, based on estimates indicating that Israel It is not prepared to fight that war, given the losses its army has suffered in Gaza.
Academic and expert in Israeli affairs, Dr. Muhannad Mustafa, said that it is logical to believe what the military sources who have experience with the army and know it well have said, and have been repeating since October 7 that the army is not ready to fight wars on several fronts.
Mustafa added – during his interview with the program “Gaza… What’s Next?” – that when Israeli politicians make threatening statements, they are based on a false belief that the army has a deterrent force against Israel’s enemies, even though the October 7 attack revealed that this is not true.
He pointed out that those who make these statements see them as part of the deterrence equation, and help in frightening Israel’s enemies and demonstrating its readiness for any confrontation. They also aim to give a kind of confidence to Israeli society that Israel is ready and is not afraid to enter into any confrontation.
threatening statements
The expert in Israeli affairs linked Netanyahu’s high tone and threats to what he sees as Israel’s conviction that the other parties do not want a comprehensive confrontation with it either, which allows for raising the level of threatening statements, despite the military’s testimonies of lack of readiness.
Mustafa believes that Israel’s lack of readiness is not only on the military level, but also on the civilian level, adding, “We are facing a weak state whose weakness and inability to fight a multi-front war, especially if it is simultaneous, have been exposed.”
He believes that Netanyahu’s strategy is based on confrontation in the Gaza Strip alone and achieving what he says is a crushing victory, noting that his friction with Iran comes within this framework and aims to prolong the war in Gaza.
Related Post
Mustafa linked Netanyahu’s apology for the October 7 attack to his rejection of any deal that would lead to a ceasefire in Gaza, as Netanyahu considered that his mistake was linked to his listening to the security level, which did not see that Hamas agitation It’s a risk, so he’s not willing to listen to him now that he needs to go for a deal.
But he also believes that Netanyahu is in a dilemma on all fronts, as he cannot make any strategic decision or confront the problems facing Israel even on the internal level, which leads him to become weaker and weaker despite the achievements he has made during the past period.
Conflicting American position
In turn, Dr. Khalil Al-Anani, Professor of Political Science and International Relations, believes that the United States has shown since the beginning of the war its keenness to prevent the outbreak of a broad regional conflict in the region, for fear that this would negatively affect its interests in the region.
He explains that this stems from its fear of becoming more involved in the Arab region and being distracted from other more important conflicts, such as the Russian war on Ukraine and the strategic conflict with China in the South China Sea and Southeast Asia.
Despite the US’s keenness to prevent the war from expanding, its continued military and diplomatic support for Israel – according to Al-Anani – reflects the opposite behaviour, especially with the lack of any pressure on Netanyahu, who even backed down from committing to a previous proposal revealed by the US president. Joe Biden As an Israeli proposal.
Al-Anani attributes this contradiction in the American position to the fact that the October 7 attack was not just a blow to Israeli prestige, but also a blow to the prestige of the United States itself, and it also led to halting plans to integrate Israel into the Arab region and create an Arab-Israeli alliance to confront the so-called Iranian threat.
Al-Anani added that the United States is not able to curb Israel, especially with the approach of the US elections, as no politician dares to risk losing his political future, and this is clearly evident through the weakness and hesitation of the Biden administration, which is the weakest administration in its dealings with Israel.
The professor of political science and international relations believes that the United States has been involved in supporting Israel based on miscalculations, adding that the damage to its interests in the region may exceed the damage to Israel itself, as the current escalation will lead to the militarization of the region in a way that conflicts with those interests.
