His seemingly reckless behaviour and impunity is rooted in a “calculated risk (gamble)” based on past experience – that is the US unconditional support despite whatever protestations.
It’s also driven by sheer desperation to ensure his political survival and “save face”.
What’s less highlighted is Netanyahu’s messianic vision (see EMIR Research article, “Netanyahu must go – first step towards ending the Gaza holocaust”, September 20, 2024) – in his quest to re-order the regional architecture and ensure Israel’s hegemony.
In this, Netanyahu is also emboldened, empowered and encouraged by his messianic allies in government who are even further to the right, i.e., the modern-day equivalent of the Jewish zealots with roots in the Maccabees (of the Maccabean Revolt).
Firstly, this means that the otherwise “fluid” and “dynamic” character of the Jewish State (internal dimension) is in jeopardy – whereby secularism (as embodied by Labor Zionism) had co-existed with religious Zionism for decades since its founding.
At the risk of anachronism, one could well regard the Maccabees of the circa 200 BC as committed to the “second cleansing” (as the underlying motive comparable to today’s genocide in intent although not necessarily in extent) in the Land of Israel – at the time from Hellenisation (Greek influence).
The lesson of the Maccabees isn’t so much or otherwise not only that Zionist settler colonialism represents the contemporary legacy (in part) but also that the very fabric of the State of Israel (as constituted by the internationally and legally recognised pre-1967 borders or the Green Line) is in danger of being torn apart.
That is, the Maccabean spirit behind ultra-religious Zionism and far-right Orthodox Judaism as embodied by the settler colonialists can only result in the destruction of the founding ideals of the Zionist entity as these forces seek to (in the absence of a formalised constitutional order) impose their messianic vision on the rest of Israeli society.
Netanyahu’s dream of annexation of the West Bank aligns with the vision of his far-right allies in government. His continuing asymmetrical war serves to only fuel these reactionary forces to go even farther and push for a “Greater Israel”.
There’s now a risk of an internal rupture or civil war looming in the future (as per e.g., Professor David Passig, an Israeli futurist, whose views have been discussed in an academic article by Professor Dr Walid Abd al-Hay’s “The Black Swan Event in Israel’s Future”, as published by the Al-Zaytouna Centre, September 2024).
Secondly, Netanyahu’s messianic vision is partly rooted in his ever-so simplistic division/bifurcation of the world into the forces of “good” (epitomised by the Judaeo-Christian influenced/inspired civilisation of the West – together with their allies) versus the forces of “evil” (the anti-Western forces of which the Axis of Resistance is the frontline) as epitomised by his recent United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) speech (September 27, 2024).
In his messianic worldview, a clash of civilisation is inevitable.
This intertwines with Netanyahu’s other motivation which could well be intensely personal.
But this is also where the contrast with his brother – the late Lieutenant Colonel Yonatan Netanyahu – comes through. Lieutenant Colonel Yonatan (Yoni) Netanyahu was tragically killed in the 1976 Entebbe Raid which took place near Kampala, the capital of Uganda.
It profoundly affected Netanyahu (Bibi)’s decision to return from the US and enter politics, partly to combat “terrorism” – see his “magnum opus”, Terrorism: How the West Can Win (1987).
It can’t be strongly emphasised that the book is tellingly indicative of how Netanyahu prides himself as someone who’s “immersed” in the Judaeo-Christian civilisation. In short, Bibi views himself as someone who straddles between the Western civilisation and Zionism and knows how the West thinks/what makes the West ticks.
Indeed, Netanyahu sees himself as representing the West.
In Netanyahu, the future of the Zionist entity is intertwined with that of the West’s.
Hence, his historic links with the contemporary manifestation of the apocalyptic/eschatological Christian Zionism based in the Bible Belt of the US and expansion of Israel’s public diplomacy directed primarily at the Westernised audience – hasbara.
Now, whether Yoni’s untimely death was that as lionised under Netanyahu, i.e., the first to be killed in the line of duty, isn’t the point.
What’s clear is that even under Netanyahu’s own standards according to the established/mainstream narrative (for political capital) of Yoni’s ultimate sacrifice, he falls far short of his heroic brother.
Thirdly and finally, Netanyahu’s binary vision ignores the complexities of regional dynamics, including in the Muslim world.
A “weak” and “tamed” Iran (especially riven by internal turmoil resulting in regime change) is bad for India – currently regarded as a strong friend of the Zionist entity.
It will only embolden Pakistan which could well step into the shoes of Iran.
Public sentiments against the Zionist entity are at an all-time high (see the insightful article by Junaid S. Ahmad entitled, “Nasrallah in Pakistan”, Middle East Monitor, October 12, 2024).
This means the heightening of Indo-Pak cross-border tensions and renewed conflict in the Occupied Territories of Kashmir under the banner of anti-Zionism. Anti-India feelings could also ramp up in neighbouring Bangladesh which will only intensify regional isolation.
Regional instability will also reverberate from Afghanistan which might take the place of Iran in becoming the main backer of the Baloch separatist movement in Pakistan. Recall that Pakistan is not on good terms with the current Taliban (despite the Haqqani network).
The nightmare of Afghanistan becoming a second front for Pakistan might metastasise into a reality.
In other words, the Zionist entity will only be exporting instability from one region to another.
Back to the immediate region itself.
Netanyahu and the West underestimate the strength and resilience of the Iranian/Persian people just as they had exactly done so in relation to Afghanistan.
In fact, both underestimate the anti-Western resolve and overestimate the “desire for change” of the Iranian/Persian people.
Efforts to induce regime change can only transform Iran into another Afghanistan. Only this time with regional implications.
Any newly installed puppet regime, even if at all, won’t last long.
The majority of Iranians/Persians don’t want regime change. At best, they want reforms and some forms of liberalisation.
And with Israel pushing its northern front buffer zone up to the Litani River (Lebanon) and setting its eyes on Syria, we shouldn’t expect Turkiye to play “passive-aggressive” anymore.
Israel can’t expect to “dump” Lebanese refugees onto Turkiye alongside escalating and extending and expanding its asymmetrical war in the Levant which could end up becoming a sort of a “containment” of the latter without risking military intervention or otherwise clashes sooner or later.
Hence, Erdogan’s “cryptic” outcry that Turkiye is “next” (see, “Is Israel a national security threat for Türkiye?”, Murat Yesiltas, Daily Sabah, October 11, 2024).
Turkiye’s insecurity is further compounded by Israel’s strategic friendship with the Kurds whose compatriots in southeastern Turkiye have been waging low-level intensity war against Ankara for decades.
And given Israel’s ambition for Iraq to be carved up/re-delineated along sectarian lines with an independent Kurdish state in the north (an intensely colonialist project), it’s perhaps not farfetched to imagine a similar projection for Turkiye too.
After all, Erdogan suspects that Zionist expansionism also affects Turkiye.
Now, this is why settler colonialism is none other than an integral component of the Zionist and Western powers’ long-term project to ultimately fragment and divide – balkanise – the Middle East.
For the mainly far-right settler colonialists act as the “frontliners” of the frontliner (i.e., the Zionist entity itself), and increasingly as stormtroopers of the “Greater Israel” project and dream, now out in the open.
Although Zionist expansionism (as State policy and geostrategy) is not (necessarily) coterminous with the “Greater Israel” project (as ambition/dream of certain Zionist groups), both are dependent on each in varying degrees.
As an example, the former would pave the way for the latter.
The immediate target (after Lebanon) is, of course, Syria (not Turkiye).
But the containment of Turkiye risks also the reconfiguring of strategic alliances and co-belligerency, not only in the immediate region itself but also on a wider scale.
For one, there could be a reignition/replay of the Kurdish-Azeri conflict which will inevitably spill over into Armenia in support of the former.
This means the coalescence of the strategic interests of Israel and Armenia (hitherto on the opposite side of the Armenian-Azeri war).
Such a scenario plays well for Israel as it also serves as a kind of containment of Turkiye (as Armenia’s historic foe, including the refusal to acknowledge or make amends for the Armenian Genocide during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire).
Additionally, Armenia on the “side of” Israel would complicate Russia’s sphere of influence in the Caucasus already undermined/subverted by internal turmoil in Georgia.
Although Syria (like Lebanon) recognises the Armenian Genocide, things might take a turn especially if Israel provides financial and military incentives to Armenia. What would be near-certain is that Armenia which has historically provided refuge for the Kurds could revive this role.
It’s also near-certain that with Armenia supporting the Kurdish insurgency, the priority is containment of Turkiye and a future fully autonomous/self-governing Northern Kurdistan (southeastern Turkiye), perhaps linked up as part of Greater Kurdistan at a later stage.
That would simultaneously play into Turkiye’s own strategic priorities – which continue to be preoccupied with fending off Kurdish militancy (see, “Is Turkiye gearing up for a new military offensive against Syria's Kurds?”, The New Arab, June 5, 2024).
Paradoxically, this might serve only to strengthen President Bashir Al-Assad’s hand who’s also embroiled in a conflict with Turkiye due to the latter’s involvement and intervention in northern Syria.
A reinvigorated Kurdish (via the “People’s Defense Units” or YPG)-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) would at the same time be driven to push back Turkish (and allied forces) from the northern corridor area of Syria – in support of Kurdish insurgency in southeastern Turkiye.
What’s clear is that the Kurds in that part of the region aren’t interested so much in the division of Syria that includes a free Western Kurdistan (hitherto also known as Rojava) but a geographic (i.e., non-ethnic) federation for a territory where slightly more than half are non-Kurds or Arabs, i.e., the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria/AANES (see, “The Kurds are creating a state of their own in northern Syria”, The Economist, May 23, 2019).
The upshot being the Zionist entity risks a full-blown confrontation with Turkiye.
Note too that Turkiye has been leading the call for a military task force to be sent to stop the genocide and atrocities in Gaza – which parallels EMIR Research’s call for a Multinational Islamic Defence Force/MIDF (“Turkiye’s Erdogan calls for Islamic alliance against Israel’s ‘threat of expansionism’”, Reuters, September 7, 2024).
In late September, President Erdogan had called on the UN to sanction the use of force in line with UNGA Resolution 377(V) passed in 1950 known as “Uniting for Peace”.
More recently, with Erdogan urging Syria (alongside Iran and Russia as the state-actors backing the Axis of Resistance) to take pro-active measures against Israel, it’s not inconceivable for the two countries to finally join forces (“Erdogan urges Russia, Syria and Iran to take action after Israeli strike on Damascus”, Middle East Eye, October 12, 2024).
It'd only make the dreaded multi-front war via a ground invasion (i.e., symmetrical warfare) against Israel a reality.
Paradoxically, Israel’s preparation for an offensive multi-front war by “pre-empting” precisely that ground invasion may just lead to the opposite – with Israel’s Sunni allies mainly staying “neutral” in the initial/critical stage.
To conclude, Netanyahu’s messianic vision to reconfigure the Middle East for ideological and personal reasons could be the beginning of the end.
Jason Loh Seong Wei is Head of Social, Law & Human Rights at EMIR Research, an independent think tank focused on strategic policy recommendations based on rigorous research.
** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.
