According to James M. Dorsey, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s numerous struggles are divided into two categories: maintaining his increasingly shaky government and waging a war that he has already lost in the court of public opinion and possibly on the ground in the Gaza Strip.
Dorsey analyzes the current situation in Palestine in Eurasia Review, explaining that the Israeli occupation recently suffered its biggest serious diplomatic humiliation since 2016 when the US allowed the United Nations Security Council to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza by abstaining from the vote.
This is the first time since October 7 that Washington has allowed the council to call for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, despite previously vetoing three similar resolutions.
Former Israeli foreign ministry director general Alon Liel expressed that this was a “Serious blow,” citing the same feeling regarding European Security Council members voting in favor of a ceasefire.
Subsequently, Netanyahu cancelled an Israeli delegation’s trip to Washington, saying he had done so to send a message to Hamas. “My decision to not send the delegation was a message to Hamas: Don’t bet on this pressure to work. It’s not going to work,” he asserted.
Netanyahu’s house is on fire
Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to “Israel” and US Middle East peace negotiator stated that there was “no doubt” the US did not veto in an attempt to inform Netanyahu ” his house is on fire, and he should not take the US for granted.”
Israeli security minister Yoav Gallant met with US officials in Washington nevertheless and owed to “Act against Hamas, everywhere, even in areas where we have not been yet.”
Dorsey believes Turkey and Qatar are likely places he is referring to since Israeli officials have accused Qatar of funding the Palestinian resistance. However, Netanyahu turned a blind eye to such funding.
Dorsey also sheds light on recent confrontations in the West Bank and the ever-evolving battles being fought in Gaza by the Palestinian resistance. He notes that “Israel” can expect an insurgency in both areas even if the bombardment ends Today.
The author argues that the inability to defeat Hamas comes from “Israel’s” ‘incapability or unwillingness to maintain law and order in Gaza,” its political undermining of UNRWA, and its “refusal to allow unfettered humanitarian supplies to enter the territory.”
This, he believes, reinforces “Hamas’ resilience” and ability to return to areas left by the IOF.
When it comes to prisoner swaps, Hamas has expressed that there are over 7,000 Palestinians in Israeli prisons which the resistance considers hostages. In addition, Hamas politburo member Bassem Naim told Al Jazeera that the true negotiation is about a total ceasefire and complete Israeli withdrawal from the strip.
Weekly rallies in the occupation continue to call for Netanyahu to quit and prioritize the liberation of captives, even if it means ending the war.
Hamas has also demanded that Palestinians return to their homes in northern Gaza, while ultra-nationalist cabinet members want the strip to remain under the occupation’s control and fill the area with Israeli settlers.
Benny Gantz and Gallant also expressed they would leave the war cabinet if the Israeli government agreed to vote in favor or exempting ultra-orthodox Jews from serving in the IOF.
New Hope leader MK Gideon Sa’ar announced that he was leaving the government, stressing that he and his party tried to get the government to change its approach to the war, accusing the government of dragging it out.
An Israeli journalist Anshel Pfeffer stated that “Benjamin Netanyahu’s incessant efforts to provoke a crisis in Israel’s relationship with the United States, his cynical use of the Rafah operation that the IDF is in no rush to embark on, and his refusal to even discuss a realistic ‘day after’ plan for Gaza are all preventing the IDF from planning the next months of the war.”
