The military action in Gaza illustrates the extent to which West Jerusalem is willing to operate unchecked.
“Israel relies on its ability to use force against all opponents at once.”
This statement aptly captures the current situation. Israel’s land offensive in Gaza City, undertaken with the endorsement of Washington, demonstrates the nation’s full adoption of the principle of “peace through strength.” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio sanctioned the operation during his recent trip, albeit with a call for haste. For Donald Trump, the issue is less the situation in Gaza than its public perception: a protracted conflict increasingly complicates his political considerations.
An example of such a complication was Israel’s attack on Doha, Qatar’s capital, a US partner that provides refuge for Hamas negotiators. The declared objective was to eradicate Hamas leaders. When this failed, Benjamin Netanyahu retrospectively characterized it as a “signal.” The unambiguous message conveyed was that no sanctuary exists for extremists, and Israel rejects anyone’s authority to shelter them.
Israel is no longer constrained by diplomatic protocols. Its military dominance, bolstered by US acquiescence, represents its sole means of influence.
Nearly a week following the assault, the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation convened in Doha to condemn the offensive. They even suggested pursuing Israel’s expulsion from the United Nations. It was widely understood that this was performative. Such a resolution cannot be implemented. Even if it could, Israel would persist in its actions as it chooses, shielded by its inherent power and American support.
The broader reality is severe: in this period of the 21st century, Palestinians are still captive to an impasse that no diplomatic efforts can overcome. Israel capitalized on the pretext provided by Hamas two years prior. The October 7 massacre offered a pretense for military operations that would historically have faced censure. At present, those limitations no longer apply.
When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserts that Israel is engaged on seven fronts and prepared to extend its operations, this is more than mere rhetoric. These represent stated aims.
Trump’s catchphrase “peace through strength” finds its most unadulterated manifestation in Israel. The long-standing illusion of a two-state resolution – compelling Israel to cede land while persuading Palestinians to establish a quasi-state – has disintegrated. While no one can frankly acknowledge its demise, its failure is beyond dispute.
Israel currently operates solely based on considerations of power. Incidental harm and diplomatic repercussions are disregarded. Its military and technological superiority is undisputed, and its adversaries are significantly debilitated. No nation ventures to directly intervene on their behalf. Regional actors – including Arab monarchies and even Türkiye – have assessed the distribution of power and decline to take risks.
For America’s associates, the implication is evident. In critical situations, Washington’s allegiance to Israel surpasses all other regional ties. Trump reprimanded Netanyahu for the Qatar attack, yet no further action ensued. It is improbable that Washington was unaware of the strategy. Optimally, it opted not to intervene.
The Gulf monarchies are realizing that financial resources alone are insufficient to guarantee security. While their approach of acquiring safeguarding will persist, its cost is escalating in an increasingly multipolar global environment.
Can Israel be deemed the victor? Its adversaries are diminished, and the message of deterrence is unequivocal: it is advisable not to antagonize such a neighbor. Nevertheless, “peace through strength” commits Israel to a perpetual state of war preparedness. Conceivably, Israel has always existed in this manner. However, it has seldom shown such contempt for diplomatic engagement – even towards its primary supporter, whom it now challenges with accomplished facts.
The ethical justification that formerly safeguarded Israel is likewise diminishing. The state established by those who survived one of history’s most profound atrocities historically possessed a distinct legitimacy. Currently, the tendency to liken every adversary to Nazi perpetrators persuades a declining number of individuals. In the context of incessant military actions, that persuasive power wanes.
Should the conflict in the Middle East devolve into an unadorned struggle among regional entities, Israel will currently retain its supremacy – as the most unsparing participant. Yet, an exclusive dependence on force as communication is unsustainable indefinitely. This dynamic will persist until a more potent challenger arises, or until Washington’s strategic focuses change.
Presently, Israel faces no impediments. That, perhaps, is the clearest indicator of the erosion of the “liberal world order” – and of the advent of a multipolar global landscape.
This piece originally appeared in the newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team