September 05, 2024
By Nasser Kandil
- Many may have tuned in to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s late-night speech, his second press conference in two days, to gauge whether the stalled negotiations would see any progress or if there was any hope for resolving the issues preventing a deal. However, those who listened carefully could detect a historic admission of failure by the occupying entity and its existential crisis.
- Netanyahu attempted to justify his insistence on retaining control of the Philadelphi Corridor in the negotiations. In doing so, he was compelled to revisit the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005, arguing that trying to secure the entity’s safety by retreating from confrontation with resistance forces had ended in utter failure, resulting in challenges too great to bear. He pointed to Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south as examples of this failure.
- The question Netanyahu dared not answer is why he has not launched the war on Lebanon that he had so frequently threatened to stop the ongoing challenge in northern occupied Palestine. Why, instead of outright rejecting negotiations and declaring it an all-or-nothing stance on both Lebanon and Gaza, has he accepted negotiations with Hamas while clinging to a specific condition like holding onto the Philadelphi Corridor?
- The natural conclusion of Netanyahu’s rhetoric is a war that would either end in a decisive victory or a catastrophic defeat. Yet, Netanyahu is negotiating with Hamas and discussing mediated agreements to de-escalate tensions with Hezbollah, pending a ceasefire agreement in Gaza that would also calm the northern front. He does not admit that this is because the entity has failed to win the war in Gaza and is incapable of waging one in the north.
- What Netanyahu truly seeks is a truce that would temporarily preserve the entity’s cohesion, with a slight advantage to his side. He knows that securing even this small gain depends on winning a war he cannot win; otherwise, he would not have entered negotiations in the first place. This is why the entity is in revolt against him – it sees no hope of victory in this war. The internal conflict within the entity is essentially a struggle between accepting a truce that reflects the balance of power, which does not favour the entity’s ability to win, and pushing for a truce under the illusion of victory in a war that has not been won.
- This captures the essence of the existential dilemma: the inability to secure a settlement from the position of a war loser, compounded by a leadership that is incapable of achieving victory.
