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

Columnist Dan Perry November 26, 2024

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to end the war in Lebanon through a U.S.-brokered ceasefire marks a rare moment of strategic clarity in his tenure. Now if only he would extend this type of rational thinking to Gaza, where he is apparently willing to sacrifice those of the 101 remaining hostages who are still alive, and IDF soldiers, in order to keep his far-right coalition intact.

By agreeing to a deal that withdraws Israeli forces from Lebanon, pushes the Iran-backed Hezbollah militia north of the Litani River several miles away from its border, and installs a U.S.-led international monitoring force, Israel is securing important gains. The main threat of an invasion, possibly via tunnels, similar to Hamas’ Oct. 7 assault, is gone.

Israel is also forcing Hezbollah to abandon its insistence that it would fight on as long as the Gaza war continues. Moreover, Israel has wiped out Hezbollah’s entire senior leadership, including its galvanizing chief Hassan Nasrallah. Most of its rockets and launchers have been used or destroyed. Along with its patrons in Iran, Hezbollah has been humbled.

But what Israel is not achieving is an end to the very existence of Hezbollah as a militia in Lebanon wielding a measure of power — which is an affront primarily to Lebanon itself. Critics are charging that Israel should have exploited its strong position to insist on full implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, mandating the dismantling of all extra-state militias in the country. Indeed, that would have been a favor to Lebanon.

That’s why the Israeli public is divided. A poll on Channel 12 TV on Tuesday night found 37% of the public were in favor of the ceasefire, 32% against and 31% unsure. Asked who won the war, 20% said Israel and 19% said Hezbollah, with 50% saying it was a tie. Not great numbers. It is not clear how many of the estimated 70,000 displaced Israelis will agree to actually return to their homes in the north.

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

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

The Gaza war could end tomorrow with a hostage deal and a framework to replace Hamas with the Palestinian Authority, bolstered by international backing. Such a plan is supported by many as the only viable path forward, yet Netanyahu’s coalition, dominated by far-right factions, opposes any moves that might empower the Palestinian Authority.

This resistance squanders a critical opportunity to reshape Gaza’s future. It creates an absurd situation where the only choices are perpetual occupation or an agreement to withdraw and leave the remains of Hamas to deal with the wreckage.

Why, then, does the war in Gaza continue? The uncomfortable truth is that Netanyahu benefits from it. Ending the Gaza war would likely topple his government, as it would be expected to unblock the delay into an official commission of inquiry into the catastrophic intelligence and security failures of Oct. 7, when Hamas’s attack left close to 1,200 Israelis dead and 251 kidnapped. Netanyahu himself has said such a commission must wait until the war’s conclusion — a timeline he now controls.

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

The logic Netanyahu applied in Lebanon — ceasefire, strategic withdrawal, and deterrence — applies equally to Gaza. A ceasefire would almost certainly yield the return of Israel’s hostages, a humanitarian and political imperative. Hamas has suffered devastating losses in leadership and infrastructure, akin to Hezbollah in Lebanon, making this an opportune moment to shift focus to long-term solutions.

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

The ongoing war in Gaza is not just a humanitarian disaster but also a strategic liability. Every day of fighting erodes Israel’s moral standing, strains relations with key allies, and deepens divisions within Israeli society. The far-right rhetoric calling for total victory ignores the complex realities of asymmetrical warfare and the impossibility of eradicating an entrenched ideology through military means alone.

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

Netanyahu’s televised defense of the Lebanon 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 does not change the bigger picture: Israel has a leadership that prioritizes personal survival over national interest.

A message from our CEO & publisher Rachel Fishman Feddersen

I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s award-winning, nonprofit journalism during this critical time.

The coming year promises to be filled with more complex and historic developments. We are entering an era where independent, fact-based Jewish journalism will be more important than ever. We need to be ready for whatever 2025 will bring, and with your help, we can be.

We’ve set a goal to raise $260,000 by December 31. That’s an ambitious goal, but one that will give us the resources we need to invest in the high quality news, opinion, analysis and cultural coverage that isn’t available anywhere else.

If you feel inspired to make an impact, now is the time to give something back. Join us as a member at your most generous level.

—  Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO

With your support, we’ll be ready for whatever 2025 brings.

$36 $500

$120 $180 Other amount