Anatomy of a Failed Strategy

On May 15, over 7 months into the Gaza war, Israel's PM Bibi Netanyahu interviewed with CNBC's Sarah Eisen and outlined his response to the most pressing issues related to it. Bibi seemed to fare well - he responded to the questions, provided his reasoning and was less evasive than we see him in other situations (e.g. with Israeli or hostile foreign journalists). To her credit, while Eisen does not come off as antagonistic, she has the talent to evoke answers by asking the question again from a different angle, and that worked nicely.

Before I dig into the weeds of this interview and critique it, a paradigm would be useful. Imagine three people: one believes in "traditional medicine" (or close to what Dr. Peter Attia characterizes as "Medicine 1.0" in his fantastic book Outlive - he speaks to the medical profession's practice of treating illness rather than preventing it). The second is a fanatical adherent of "natural medicine" or "holistic medicine". The third combines the two and is willing to try anything that works. 

When these people analyze the results of their treatments, their responses will mostly vary, with some overlap.

The traditional medicine follower will credit it with all success in his treatments, and when it fails, will accept that mainstream medicine isn't  always assured of success. He might try a new prescription or (say in the case of an acute internal, bone or muscle issue) opt for an expensive operation, hoping it'll help.

The natural medicine follower will apply similar logic - first trying natural remedies, and when when facing failure, may give up and let nature have its way. He will only subject to traditional medicine under acute pain and/or peer pressure.

The hybrid-medicine follower will start with a mix of treatments, and progress from there. Although he'll be less apt to attribute success or failure to one approach or another (not knowing exactly what worked and what didn't), he'll continue the experimentation with a greater level of flexibility than the other two folks. 

Ultimately, the human body is subject to atrophy and at some point it will fail and die. However, and as Dr. Attia persuasively argues in his book, we have some control over our late-age quality of life and should take an active role in determining it, through a mix of exercise, good diet, low stress and a flexible approach to medicine.

I believe that this paradigm nicely applies to politics. People tend to explain success or failure of policies based on their pre-existing general opinions of a topic. When I read some of the talkback threads to Middle East media opinion pieces, I am disappointed by the one-sidedness of so many of the responses. It's as if everyone in a debate has a chip on their shoulder and views it as critical that they make enough points to win it. They are the "traditional medicine" and "natural medicine" followers. 

I'm more of the "hybrid medicine" type. Whenever I post a comment to such an article, I try my best (sometimes failing) to shy away from aggressive or insulting language. I try to point out what points I agree to, and which I don't. I'm not trying to win an argument, just to put forward points that any serious person should consider.

In that spirit, I'm making the remarks below on Bibi's Interview. So don't take it personally if you generally side with one wing or another of the Gaza debate, I make points for both camps.

An emotional point first: for many Israelis - including myself - seeing Bibi interviewing on international media at this point in time, is an affront. The man should have resigned many times over since the colossal failure of the Israel government on and after Oct. 7th, on many fronts. Why he still holds power should be mystifying to international observers, and is an outcome of the Israeli coalition politics. In Israel, governments often rise and fall on a thin edge of parliamentary elections. You'll see them fall on minor topics such as, financing for religious communities or judicial reforms. However in this case, the unexpected happened and it is surviving (albeit temporarily) the biggest disaster in Israel's history. In an alternative scenario, suppose Hamas had invaded Israel on Oct 7th and encountered significant pushback. Nevertheless, it had killed or captured a smaller but significant number of soldiers and civilians (say, up to 50). In that case, Bibi would not have had a clear mandate from the public to embark on a land operation in Gaza, but on the other hand would be facing mass demonstrations that might have eventually toppled his government. Hamas, by "succeeding" to the extent it did, forced the Israeli public's hand into supporting a highly aggressive response by it, and kept its inept government in power while the war is being carried out.

So when I watch one of these interviews, I try to imagine another - more honest - spokesperson for Israel responding. Perhaps someone like the excellent Douglas Murray. 

Back to Bibi's interview, the key points were:

1. Asked about the release of $1B in aid to Israel this week and in response to a question about the partial arms embargo (due to the Rafah invasion), he confirmed it and in addition stated that although there are disagreements with the US administration over Rafah, Israel has to do what it has to, to eliminate Hamas: "We cannot continue into the future by having Hamas retake Gaza... it would be a tremendous victory for the Iran terror axis." He also says that although they won't explicitly say so, the elimination of Hamas would be a victory for the moderate Arab nations as well. He then goes on to explain that in 1948 Israel declared its independence while under a US arms embargo (Marshall opposed the declaration at the time) and that in 1991 after Begin bombed the Iraqi nuclear facility, Reagan put in place a 3-month embargo. 

2. Responding to a question about what happens after the war and what Israel wants to see, what should take the place of the power vacuum, he said that before speaking of the day after, there has to be a day after, meaning no Hamas. After that, there should be a non-Hamas civilian authority with Israel maintaining military control there. 

3. Asked about the idea of a two-state solution, he rejects it, saying it would be the greatest reward to the enemy, citing a recent poll that 80% of Palestinians in Gaza/West Bank support the October 7 savagery. Any such state would immediately be taken over by Hamas and Iran, and become a launch pad to future wars. Instead, he wants to provide the Palestinians with all the power they need to govern themselves, and none of the power to threaten Israel's survival.

Regardless of your side on the conflict, his reasoning should come across as somewhat sound. A sovereign nation should be able to protect itself, and wouldn't make sense to leave Gaza, handing it back to Hamas (the claims by the South African representative at the Hague kangaroo court that Israel does not have a right to self-defense against an "occupied" power are self-contradictory and ridiculous, since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005). A civilian authority makes sense, continued military control seems to make sense (although it comes with a hefty price), and it's difficult to argue for a Palestinian state in the near future, given the current political landscape both within the Palestinian territories and Israel.

However, Bibi is relying on the fact that most of the viewers are unfamiliar with the intricacies of the conflict, and in particular how they've been unfolding on the ground. A few facts to chew on are:

1. The ground invasion into Gaza did not include a plan for dealing with the millions of Gazans being displaced - from a humanitarian and logistical perspective. While Israel has considerable logistical capabilities, they weren't deployed at all in that first stage. In fact, some politicians including Government ministers, called to not allow food and medical supplies into Gaza at all, until the hostages are released.
   
   
2. After most Gazans moved to the southern part of the enclave, and Israel completed its military campaign in the northern and central parts, Israel proceeded to withdraw most of its forces from them, and left a vacuum of power in those neighbourhoods. Not surprisingly, surviving Hamas terrorists stepped right back into them. In fact, Israel is now finding itself entering and battling in the same areas for the third and fourth time. This doesn't seem like the result of a well executed military strategy.
   
   
3. Israel (led by Bibi) has consistently resisted any attempt by the USA and moderate Arab states coalition, to carve a hostage release deal in return for a cease fire. Even a partial deal for a partial cease fire (the period mentioned was 6 weeks), was rejected. Here, we really have to be cautious in criticism, since Hamas had cynically and brutally used these negotiations to play a delay game in which additional hostages have been killed or died from illnesses and wounds. But when a proposal was made for a "grand deal" in which Israel would end the war in return for all of the hostages and a retreat of the top Hamas leaders out of Gaza, it was reportedly rejected by Bibi out of hand. If this is indeed the case, then the families of the hostages are justified in their declarations that they'll "burn down the country" until their loved ones are released.
   
   
4. The northern part of Israel has suffered from a slow-moving and constant rocket war by Hezbollah, displacing 60,000 civilians and creating an economic and human disaster area there. Israel has done nothing diplomatically to de-escalate that situation, albeit handcuffed by the Gaza situation and thousands of Iranian-made rockets pointed at its cities.

There are many other details that outsiders probably wouldn't easily digest or be interested in - but suffice to say that the level of discontent and anger in Israel now is high. A poll released by the local channel 12 on May 17th, has Bibi's Likud party getting 19 out of 120 parliament seats and losing its governing coalition if elections were held now.

Here are the questions I would ask Bibi if I had the opportunity. While some Israeli journalists have mustered the courage to pose some version of them in his sporadic visits to military outposts, he bats them down with glib and dismissive responses.

1. Why didn't you resign after the colossal failure of your government to protect Israel on Oct. 7th? Isn't your job description bullet point no. 1, protection of the citizens of Israel?
   
   
2. Why have you so badly bungled the issue of civilian services in Gaza? Did you think that after eliminating Hamas, a fairy godmother would step in to manage it? 
   
   
3. Why have you and your government done such a poor job of defining and communicating a positive, forward vision for Israel in the occupied territories? When you offer the Palestinians "full control over civilian matters", does that include a future vision - maybe in 5 or 10 years - to peaceful statehood with Israel? If not, do you think they'll agree to live forever under the Israeli military thumb? Granted, Israel should never allow another terrorist state, but why not try and create a new dynamic towards progress?

This is a very sad and depressing time for Israel lovers watching the events unfold. I, along with others, had hoped that Israel would couple its vital military response to Hamas, with a wise and forward-looking approach to the future of the Middle East. Instead, we have a Pink Panther episode courtesy of the Israeli government, coupled by a truly heroic response by its grassroots fighters and civilians. I pray that Bibi Netanyahu soon step off the stage and let others take the reigns of power. He's done enough damage.