Many were shocked by Benjamin Netanyahu’s statements last week, as well as those of his fanatical minister, Bezalel Smotrich. They stressed their firm belief in the inevitability of achieving “Greater Israel” and their relentless drive to turn its “map” in reality on the ground, no matter the cost.
In an incident that is not isolated from this “declaration of war,” Itamar Ben-Gvir - the “third side” of the Israeli extremism triangle (alongside Netanyahu and Smotrich) - stormed into the prison cell of the Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti in a stunningly horrific display.
This crude rampage, which disregards all norms governing relations between civilized states, might not have come as a surprise. Nonetheless, in its current form and substance - and given what it portends for the future - we cannot deny that Israel is out of control. We are now facing an unprecedented level of contempt for adversaries, international legitimacy, and even for the few “friends” Israel still has beyond, of course, the United States.
It is troubling that, as Israel’s extremists persist with this blatant aggression, deterrence does not seem to be on the horizon. Given the current international and regional realities, any sensible observer would dismiss the prospect of serious action to save the Middle East from the dangers of war, strife, and collapse leading to chaos.
Netanyahu and Smotrich’s map of “Greater Israel” includes several Arab countries, some of which do not even share a land border with Israel. Other states it encompasses have either accepted political normalization with the Jewish state or chosen to quietly coexist with its war machine, which is freely roaming their land, skies, and coasts.
There is no doubt that Arab states are entitled to appeal to the international community, asking the latter to intervene and prevent its explicit plans to end their sovereignty. Yet we are far from being in a normal state of affairs when the world’s only arbiter is simultaneously both “the rival and the judge.”
On another level, the threats posed by Israel’s extremist hardliners are not limited to maps and bombastic statements. They are creating realities on the ground as a result of a terrible mix of factors.
First: Poor “crisis management” on the local level in several of the states targeted by Israel’s ambitions. Any rational observer or analyst knows that, in such conditions, mistakes (whether in judgment or execution) will facilitate Israeli intervention and help it achieve its agendas. In a grotesque twist of irony, wanton actors serve and even justify this intervention, knowingly or not.
Second: There are “miscalculations” of catastrophic proportions, at both Arab and regional levels, especially with regard to the need for “containing” the reckless adventurism of certain regional players and their overreaching ambitions. Despite their relative strength and their ability to “mobilize” aligned groups thus far, they should be aware that, on one hand, they do not monopolize the cards of the game, and, on the other, they do not have the capacity to exert control.
Third: The ambiguity of Washington’s position, as we have repeatedly and persistently seen, has fueled the problem. It sends signals that are either mistaken and often stem from misassessment to everyone concerned. The relatively modest knowledge, expertise, or credibility of the US officials entrusted with managing the region’s complex problems has only made matters worse. Many observers see Washington’s current approach as the result of immaturity that sometimes even contradicts the frameworks traditionally adopted by administrations of the past.
The ambiguity of its policy, which I had already pointed to in previous columns, reopens doors to regional and international powers that had seemed, for a time, to have lost their capacity to build or were on the verge of losing their capacity to influence in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Fourth: Returning to the matter of “poor crisis management,” it has recently become clear that certain Western actors monitoring the situation in Syria had always been aware of what was happening. The previous impression that they have given the authorities a “free hand” has proven inaccurate. Rather, unfortunate recent developments, particularly in northwestern and southern Syria, appear to have “prompted” several external “lobbies” to come to the defense of domestic communities they refuse to see marginalized or repressed.
Fifth: With regard to the situation in Lebanon, it has been extremely clear that things are taking a grim turn, especially after the explosive recent speech by Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem. He rejected the measures that the government decided on to enforce a "monopoly on arms,” - that is, to disarm the party’s militia. Here, it must be noted that the disarmament of militias is stipulated by the Taif Accords, and that the authorities have repeatedly reaffirmed that arms must be held by state forces and agencies alone, with decisions of war and peace made exclusively by state authorities.
Nonetheless, another complication arose recently. A group of individuals in Syria who referred to themselves as the “kin of Sunni political prisoners” openly threatened the Lebanese authorities.
This sudden development could spark sectarian Sunni-Shiite tensions at a moment when the peace in Lebanon seems particularly fragile. This threat is made more alarming by the presence of armed Syrian tribes along the Lebanese border. Hezbollah is in a high state of alert, and the other Lebanese fear that Israel could raise the temperature of this already hot summer.
Finally, concerning the Kurdish question, serious doubts and questions are being raised regarding the prospects for compromise and de-escalation. Turkish-Kurdish have been fraught historically, and Kurdish relations with Damascus seem obscure. While the Kurds continue to enjoy US support and control the territory to east of the Euphrates, the leadership in Ankara is intent on consolidating a “centralized state” in Syria. Ankara is taking what it perceives as the Kurdish minority’s “role” in threatening that centralization head on.
Does not this dangerous reality bring to mind the famous verses of Nasr ibn Sayyar al-Laythi?
“I see in the ashes the glimmer of a flame,
Soon the spark will become a fire untamed
“For a flame is kindled by just two sticks,
And war begins with a word that sticks
“If you do not quench it, the fire of war will flare,
A fierce blaze that makes youth boy’s hair fall
“So I wondered, in my astonishment, full of dismay:
Are the Umayyads awake... or fast asleep today?”
