An article by a French human rights writer on the Media Part website discussed statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the war in Gaza will be long, and his call for a new intensification of the bombing of the Strip.
He pointed out that after the war, Netanyahu must bear his responsibility for the choices that exposed Israel to a historical shock, and the Palestinian people to a barbaric massacre in which more than 21,000 people have been killed so far, which means the beginning of the end for his political career.
French writer and human rights activist Rene Bachman said, in a long article on the Media Part website, that Netanyahu realizes that the end of the fighting means a possible resumption of large-scale mobilization of civil society against his political projects, and also against his disastrous management of the “hostages” issue, especially if the rest of them do not leave the country. Gaza is alive, and it also means a possible return to court to answer the accusations of corruption, fraud and breach of trust that have burdened him for more than 5 years.
At this moment – the writer says – the Prime Minister must explain his position before the investigation committee that will undoubtedly be formed to examine the circumstances in which the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) was able to carry out the October 7 operation, under the eyes of the Israeli intelligence services, which led to The country is in one of the worst shocks in its history.
Given the lack of trust that has existed for years between Netanyahu and the judges, especially the judges of the Supreme Court, and the tradition of assigning the president of the court to head investigative committees, as was the case with Shimon Agranat in 1973 in the “Yaktober War,” and then with Yitzhak Kahane in 1982, in the Sabra massacre. And Shatila in Beirut, it is believed that Netanyahu is not enthusiastic about the idea of answering the questions of Esther Hayot or her successor as head of the court.
Tension with Washington?
According to the French website, it is known that Netanyahu, in the face of these adversities and in the face of the terrible results for the Palestinians and the disappointing results for the Israeli army, during the first two months of the war on Gaza, turned a deaf ear to the demands of a ceasefire.
Netanyahu was not receptive to the Americans’ proposals. When National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan called on him to involve the Palestinian Authority to envision a “post-Hamas” scenario, he responded without any consideration by saying, “I will be clear. I do not want Israel to repeat the Oslo mistake. I will not allow the entry of people who teach terrorism and support terrorism.” Terrorism and they finance terrorism in Gaza. Gaza will neither be Hamastan nor Fatehistan.”
One of the signs of American discomfort – as the writer sees it – is the Biden administration’s decision to “delay the transfer” of 20,000 M-16 assault rifles to Israel, because it fears that the racist Minister of National Security, Ben Gvir, will distribute them to the settler militias that Supports its attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank.
Netanyahu and the Democratic presidents
Media Part continues that Netanyahu’s relations with Barack Obama were disastrous from the beginning and for 8 years, as he stood against the 44th president’s desire to relaunch negotiations with the Palestinians, and did everything in his power, to no avail, to prevent him from concluding the international agreement on Iranian nuclear energy, in violation of this. Advice from many military and intelligence officials.
Although the current Democratic president maintains somewhat friendly relations with the Likud leader, he says, “I like Bibi, but I don’t like what he says at all.”
As a study conducted by sociologist Yagil Levy, a specialist in military issues at the Open University of Israel, shows, the Israeli army, in order to increase its destructive power against Hamas, decided to abandon the distinction between civilians and combatants during its strikes.
Final allies
It is no secret that the American “strategic umbrella” provides – along with the nuclear weapon that is not mentioned but is real and is possessed by Israel – the deterrence system that protects Tel Aviv. Can Netanyahu not accept, in order to preserve this “life insurance”, Washington’s requests, To appear as a “national hero” capable of resisting even Washington to prevent the birth of a Palestinian state?
Former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas points out that “the goals of the war were reversed,” as the goal was originally to destroy Hamas militarily, while recognizing its ability to maintain what remained of political power, but today the movement is still active militarily.
Ehud Barak, who succeeded him as prime minister in 1999, after his first term in power, agreed with Pinkas and others, writing in Haaretz that “Netanyahu is unable to lead this war and that he must leave office before the consequences of his weaknesses become irreparable.” “.
In this context, the Jewish racists Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich remain his last allies at the present time, but they also expressed some reservations last week, and denounced Netanyahu’s decision to allow two fuel trucks to enter the Gaza Strip every day as a lenient concession.
Bad engineer
Rene Bachman pointed out that Netanyahu erected a “separation wall” on the border of the Gaza Strip, at a depth of 65 meters underground, consisting of concrete and steel. This system is interspersed with watchtowers equipped with anti-infiltration cameras and radars, and also includes automatic machine guns that are fired as soon as an “echo” is detected. In the “forbidden zone” at a distance of 300 meters, to prevent any infiltration into Israeli territory.
However, the “October 7” operation showed the weakness of this “protective edge”, which the attackers penetrated with bulldozers, after they “blinded” the cameras and radars and destroyed the machine guns.
Through the soldiers’ testimonies, it became clear that alert messages were transmitted to the General Staff before the October 7 operation without being taken into account at the “political level,” and that the surveillance balloons used to monitor the sector had been out of order for weeks and that repair requests had not been responded to.
The writer concluded that the architect of this security system was Netanyahu, who was not accustomed to admitting his mistakes, and wondered how long Israeli society would accept being led by a politician whose speeches, 30 years ago, contributed to provoking the assassination of a prime minister, and whose irresponsible political and strategic choices led to the exacerbation of this problem?