Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Photo by Gil Cohen-Magen / POOL / AFP / Getty Images

Journalist
Dan Perry
November 26, 2024

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to end the war in Lebanon with a U.S.-brokered ceasefire marks a rare moment of strategic clarity in his tenure. Now if only he could extend this type of rational thinking to Gazawhere he is apparently willing to sacrifice the 101 surviving hostages, as well as IDF soldiers, in order to keep his far-right coalition intact.

By agreeing to a deal that withdraws Israeli forces from Lebanon, pushes the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia north of the Litani River several kilometers from its border and installs a U.S.-led international monitoring force, Israel gains significant gains. The main threat of an invasion, possibly via tunnels, similar to the Hamas assault of October 7, has disappeared.

Israel is also forcing Hezbollah to abandon its insistence that it would continue fighting as long as the war in Gaza continues. Additionally, Israel wiped out the entire senior leadership of Hezbollah, including its galvanizing leader Hassan Nasrallah. Most of its rockets and launchers have been used or destroyed. Just like its sponsors in Iran, Hezbollah has been humiliated.

But what Israel fails to achieve is the end of Hezbollah’s very existence as a militia in Lebanon wielding some power – which is, above all, an affront to Lebanon itself. Critics accuse Israel of exploiting its position of strength to insist on full UN implementation. Security Council Resolution 1559demanding the dismantling of all extra-state militias in the country. Indeed, it would have been a favor for Lebanon.

This is why Israeli public opinion is divided. A poll broadcast Tuesday evening on Channel 12 television found that 37 percent of public opinion supported the ceasefire, 32 percent opposed and 31 percent unsure. Asked who won the war, 20% said Israel and 19% Hezbollah, with 50% saying it was a tie. No big numbers. It is unclear how many of the 70,000 displaced Israelis will agree to return home to the north.

Netanyahu defended his decision in a televised statement, emphasizing that Israel retains the freedom to strike if Hezbollah violates the agreement. “If he tries to rebuild terrorist infrastructure near the border, we will attack,” he said.

This claim of deterrence should sound familiar: it is precisely the argument for ending the war in Gaza. Yet Netanyahu’s government is resisting this next logical step, clinging to a conflict that serves its own political interests.

The war in Gaza could end tomorrow with a hostage deal and a framework to replace Hamas with the Palestinian Authority, backed by international support. Such a plan is supported by many as the only viable path, but Netanyahu’s coalition, dominated by far-right factions, opposes any move that would empower the Palestinian Authority.

This resistance is squandering a crucial opportunity to reshape Gaza’s future. This creates an absurd situation where the only choices are perpetual occupation or a withdrawal agreement and leaving the remnants of Hamas to deal with the rubble.

So why does the war in Gaza continue? The uncomfortable truth is that Netanyahu is profiting. Ending the war in Gaza would likely topple his government, as it would unblock the delay in establishing a formal commission of inquiry into the catastrophic failures of the intelligence and security services on October 7, when the attack on Gaza Hamas has caused nearly 1,200 Israeli deaths and 251 kidnappings. Netanyahu himself has said such a commission must wait until after the war — a timeline he now controls.

Moreover, Netanyahu’s coalition thrives on perpetual conflict, which distracts from internal political conflicts and allows him to consolidate power. For a leader whose political survival depends on maintaining his coalition’s far-right support, the war in Gaza represents a lifeline, even if it exacts an unbearable toll on Israeli society.

The logic Netanyahu applied to Lebanon – ceasefire, strategic withdrawal and deterrence – also applies to Gaza. A ceasefire would almost certainly result in the return of Israeli hostages, a humanitarian and political imperative. Hamas has suffered devastating losses in leadership and infrastructure, much like Hezbollah in Lebanon, making this an opportune time to focus on long-term solutions.

Netanyahu’s government, however, is blocking such progress, preferring to perpetuate the status quo of war. But just as in Lebanon, a ceasefire in Gaza could be presented as a strategic pause rather than a concession.

The ongoing war in Gaza is not only a humanitarian disaster but also a strategic handicap. Each day of fighting erodes Israel’s moral standing, strains relations with its key allies and deepens divisions within Israeli society. Far-right rhetoric calling for total victory ignores the complex realities of asymmetric warfare and the impossibility of eradicating a well-established ideology by military means alone.

Prolonging the war also risks missing an unprecedented opportunity to reshape the region. The Lebanon deal isolates Hamas, while Hezbollah’s leadership is now decimated and the group’s operations reduced. This moment could be used to forge a broader regional strategy, but Netanyahu appears incapable of thinking beyond immediate political calculations.

Netanyahu’s televised defense of Lebanon’s ceasefire notably avoided questions from journalists, a tactic that highlights his aversion to accountability. His decision to end the war in Lebanon was the right one, but it doesn’t change the bigger picture: Israel has a leadership that prioritizes personal survival over national interest.