Hiding the 'ratio': Israel conceals 200+ troop deaths in Lebanon front.

Having established a 1:1 kill ratio in the past six months of border clashes, Hezbollah has now set its sights on high-value Israeli targets to counter Tel Aviv's strikes into Lebanon's geographic depth.

Khalil Nasrallah

MAR 28, 2024

https://thecradle.co/articles/hiding-the-ratio-israel-conceals-200-troop-deaths-on-lebanon-front

Since 8 October, more than 230 Israeli soldiers have been killed by Hezbollah fighters in cross-border operations against the occupation state, according to field data obtained by The Cradle.

This suggests that the Lebanese resistance has achieved parity in the number of forces killed by both sides during the past six months of military clashes.

This feat is as significant as it is impressive, given that "relatively poorly armed and usually outnumbered popular resistance forces never achieve a 1:1 ratio against high-tech, heavily weaponized colonialist and neo-colonialist forces," as noted by one analyst in the aftermath of Israel's 2006 war on Lebanon.

Hezbollah's new 'targets ratio'

While Hezbollah honors the martyrdoms of its fallen fighters by disclosing both name and number, the Israeli military tightly controls its casualty information flow, masking the true extent of its losses and downplaying the significance of crucial Israeli installations struck by Hezbollah drones and missiles in the country's northern front.

Recent reports suggest 258 Hezbollah fighters have been killed since 8 October, while Israel has claimed only 10 fatalities among its forces - a highly improbable figure given Hezbollah's extensive dissemination of war footage showing its Israeli troop targeting operations.

In comparison, during Israel's 2006 war on Lebanon, which lasted only 34 days, Hezbollah's losses are estimated to be around 250 dead fighters versus Israel's declared 121 troops deaths, although that number is believed to be significantly higher. Ten Israeli deaths on the Lebanese border after six months of ferocious clashes makes little sense in this context. 

Arab 'cannon fodder' and foreign mercenaries 

Tel Aviv adds to this “fog of war” by employing Bedouin and Druze troops on its frontlines to make concealing army deaths easier.

For instance, Israel provides a "material allowance" to the families of soldiers from the Bedouin "Qasasi al-Athar" unit, which is deployed to a number of Israel's borders - Lebanon, Gaza, Egypt - with a focus on preventing cross-border infiltrations, particularly during times of conflict.

Field estimates indicate that the largest number of Israeli deaths occurred in the ranks of this unit.

In recent years, Israel has launched a series of military propaganda campaigns to showcase the diversity in its ranks. Deputy Army Spokesman "Captain Ayla," an Arab Jew, organized a 2020 tour at the Lebanese–Palestinian border with a Qasasi al-Athar unit officer named Ali Falah, who works within the Northern Brigade, to highlight the perilous nature of their work at point zero.

It seems that the Israeli military employs the same strategies – paying off the families of dead Bedouin troops – with soldiers from the Arab Druze community, who are part of individual formations and battalions or so-called 'local defense' in villages near the Lebanese border. 

For instance, 70 percent of the 299th Battalion, which is stationed in the Hurfaish area – four kilometers from the Lebanese border – are members of the Druze community. The battalion has incurred casualties on the deadly front, but Israel has only reported one loss to date. 

As with many armies facing decline, mercenaries have become a fixture within the ranks of the Israeli armed forces and are active in the combat units of the Israeli army. Many of these enlisted during the Gaza aggression and have been subsequently deployed to the border with Lebanon.

Despite the active involvement of mercenaries, their deaths often go unacknowledged, and their bodies are quietly repatriated without official recognition as fallen soldiers. Evidence suggests that a significant number of them have perished on the border frontlines.

Declining morale: why Israel hides its death toll 

The unprecedented events of the Palestinian resistance's Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on 7 October have cast an ominous shadow over the entire Israel project, sending shockwaves through every facet of society. 

With Tel Aviv's declaration of total war on Gaza and the sudden eruption of conflict on a second front in southern Lebanon, anxiety reached a fever pitch. 

The Israeli military understood that waging a full-scale war on two fronts, particularly against Lebanon, where Hezbollah has raised an army of 100,000 and possesses vastly more sophisticated weaponry and training than the resistance in Palestine, posed insurmountable challenges. 

In addition, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government faces unprecedented pressures from multiple domestic fronts: Israeli prisoners held by the resistance factions, the need to achieve stated war objectives in the Gaza Strip, 'displacement' of hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers in the north, mutiny within his war cabinet, and the catastrophic economic damage resulting from the war. 

Consequently, Israel's security establishment, with the support of the War Council, has pursued a series of policies to address the emerging reality on the northern border, primarily relying on US efforts and diplomatic interventions to return the settlers and free its prisoners – without resorting to military actions that are unlikely to guarantee ideal results.

The pressure from displaced northern settlers, coupled with the growing realization that Hezbollah has imposed a physical, geographic security buffer inside Israel, has heavily influenced the army's decision to conceal its staggering military losses, both human and material. Tel Aviv does not disclose this data to the public to avoid challenges that may lead to the expansion and uncontrollable escalation of the conflict.

Ratio: quality over depth 

In exchange for obscuring its losses, the occupation army seeks to project an image of strength by launching air force raids deep inside Lebanon. These are intended to deter Hezbollah, along with threats by top Israeli officials, such as Chief of Staff and Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant, who proclaimed in November: “What we're doing in Gaza, we can also do in Beirut.”

Having already established a 'kill ratio' in this war, it is suggested that Hezbollah may be aiming to establish a new 'qualitative ratio' in its fight with Israel. This involves Hezbollah carefully selecting qualitative targets such as Israeli barracks and command centers – rather than merely matching Israel's 'depth strikes' in Lebanon – to deter the enemy and achieve its objectives.

To counter Israel's depth approach, Hezbollah has reframed the equation: it has prioritized 'qualitative Israeli targets' over mere geographical distance. This strategic shift was noted in the aftermath of Israel's attack on the southern suburb of Beirut to assassinate Saleh al-Arouri, the deputy head of Hamas' political bureau. 

In response, the Lebanese resistance targeted a significant and sensitive site near the border – the Meron multi-mission air surveillance base – dealing a substantial blow to its functionality.

Hezbollah's strategic maneuvers have placed Tel Aviv in a difficult predicament. The resistance's evolving tactics disrupt the occupation army's operations, causing confusion and threatening to escalate strikes on quality targets in the event that the war expands. 

Strikes targeting specific installations – such as the volley of over 100 rockets against strategic sites in the Golan Heights in return for an Israeli attack on Baalbeck earlier this month – carry profound security implications for Israel.

Hezbollah's deliberate and rapid retaliation underscores its readiness to confront any incursions into sensitive territories, rewrite the rules of engagement at will, and maintain the delicate balance of power along the border.

Why Hezbollah opened Lebanon's southern front

When Hezbollah opened a Lebanese front on 8 October last year, its strategic objectives were twofold: to bolster the resistance in Gaza and to sow confusion within the Israeli military on the northern front. This required significant troop movements, the deployment of air defense systems, and heightened air force readiness, as Israel anticipated potential escalation, especially in the initial stages of the conflict.

In addition to this primary objective, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah highlighted another critical point: Israel's behavior within Lebanon. There was a concern that Tel Aviv might initiate or manipulate the front to align with its own objectives, possibly with a 'deterrent' intent.

The overarching objectives of Hezbollah's strategy included supporting the resistance in Palestine, synchronizing operations with the dynamics of the conflict there, enhancing deterrence against Israeli aggression, and preventing wide-scale attacks. Additionally, Hezbollah aimed to send clear messages through battlefield actions, showcasing the resistance's intelligence capabilities and versatility in targeting. 

The strategy aims to restrain the conflict from expanding to serve Israel's strategic interests, all while inflicting constant attrition on the enemy forces stationed in the north.

Ultimately, Hezbollah's approach has resulted in significant losses and costs for the enemy, albeit less than what would be incurred in a full-blown confrontation. Consequently, the Israeli army finds itself ensnared in a front adeptly managed by Hezbollah, where calculations are based on actual losses rather than publicized figures or internal propaganda.

Its remarkable ‘kill ratio’ aside, Hezbollah has raised the stakes for Tel Aviv, which now has to calculate its losses every time it strikes deeper into Lebanese lands. Israel's misguided depth strategy has now created a Hezbollah 'quality ratio.'

Why do people in Nordic countries consistently rank as the happiest and what can we learn from them?

By Camille Bello

Published on 23/03/2024.

https://www.euronews.com/health/2024/03/23/why-do-people-in-nordic-countries-consistently-rank-as-the-happiest-and-what-can-we-learn-

Happiness and general well-being are not about money, but they do have something to do with a wallet.

The Nordic countries are always winning when it comes to the happiness race. Finland took the top spot for the seventh year in a row in 2024, followed by Denmark and Iceland. But why are they so consistently happy?

Some say it’s because they are small, homogenous, and wealthy. Several years ago, a research paper even suggested it was because they are genetically bound to be happier.

But according to the World Happiness Report (WHR), such theories are inaccurate.

First, let’s talk about money

Yes, Nordic countries are all relatively rich and happy, but not all relatively rich nations are happy like the Nordics. Singapore, the third wealthiest country in the world, sits at 26th place, while Saudi Arabia, one of the world’s richest, sits at 27th.

The one money factor we should investigate is that Nordic countries are known for having low levels of income inequality, yet researchers have not proven that it actually correlates with high life satisfaction. 

However, what they have been able to prove is that if income inequality leads to mistrust, then it does directly contribute to lower life satisfaction. Simply put, people really do hate feeling cheated.

Must be genetics, then. Are they biologically predisposed to be happy?

Even if the answer to that question was a resounding yes, that would only paint about a third of the picture.

Science has been telling us for years that genetics play a role in explaining people’s satisfaction with their lives. It’s what the happiness experts call the ‘biomarkers’ of happiness.

However, studies tell us that 60 to 70 per cent of the difference in happiness between people is caused by environmental factors, so only the remaining 30 to 40 per cent is attributable to genetics.

It’s not because they are 'small' and 'homogenous' nations

The WHR authors also say they have failed to show a relation between the size of a country’s population and life satisfaction.

And what’s more, Nordic countries are not exactly homogenous. Around 8 per cent of the Finnish population is foreign-born, about the same percentage as in Denmark, where 7.5 per cent is foreign. That’s not that different from countries such as France, where immigrants make up around 10 per cent of the population.

And if you still argue that 10 per cent is significant, findings from the 2018 World Happiness Report showed the share of immigrants in a country has no effect on the average level of happiness of those locally born.

Of the happiest countries, 10 on the list had a common share of immigrants averaging 17.2 per cent, which is about twice as much as the global average.

And what is most important yet. Other analyses show that the effect of ethnic diversity on social trust becomes unimportant when there are quality government institutions. And this leads us to the binding element behind Nordic happiness: trust.

We asked the editor of the World Happiness Report, Professor John F. Helliwell, who has been working on happiness surveys for more than 25 years: how can nations be happy, Nordic style?

"The simple answer is to be high on all of the six variables," he jokes, referring to the six key indicators in the World Happiness Report - GDP per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom, generosity, and corruption.

"But where they [the Nordics] are really top on, is in trust and benevolence, both within their official institutions and their private behaviour".

What does that mean, in practice? This is what experts think it comes down to.

Is it because they are homogenously happy?

For the first time, last year's World Happiness Report evaluated the size of the happiness gap between the more and less happy halves of the population. A higher ranking means lower happiness inequality.

The Nordic countries all rank high in equality, meaning the inequality of happiness is virtually non-existent. Most of their populations consider themselves to be happy.

"And it turns out that people are happier living in countries where the happiness gap is smaller. And where is the happiness gap the smallest? Well, in the happy countries," said Helliwell to Euronews Next.

Conversely, Afghanistan also had one of the smallest happiness gaps in the 2023 WHR, "but for the worst of reasons: nobody's happy". It remained the most unhappy country in the newly-published 2024 report in spot 143.

The quality of government institutions and welfare state generosity

These have an important and positive impact on life satisfaction (so much in fact, that the Corruption Perception Index can work as a predictor of who will make it to the top or the bottom of the happiness ranking).

Data shows people are more satisfied with their lives in countries where there is institutional quality. That’s usually divided into the democratic quality and delivery quality. 

The latter is the one more strongly related to citizen happiness, according to the WHR: good pensions, generous parental leaves, maintenance for the ill and disabled, free health and education, solid unemployment benefits, etc.

Quality government institutions are successful at making inequality levels very low, and that makes people happy because they feel they can trust their public institutions.

'Trust is terribly important'

That’s according to Helliwell. One of the experiments they’ve developed to test and prove the importance of trust is by asking people if they thought their wallet would be returned if they lost it.

The researchers compared how likely a respondent thought their lost wallet would be returned with their score of life satisfaction. The results showed that those who expected their wallet to be returned had a life evaluation of more than one point higher on a scale of zero to 10.

In other words, people who trusted their wallets would be returned considered themselves to be happier than those who didn’t.

Reader's Digest, an American company, conducted a similar experiment globally in 2021. Can you guess which city had the most wallets returned? Helsinki.

The World Happiness Report uses the Gallup World Poll as the principal source of data and asks respondents to provide a broad "life evaluation" using the mental image of a ladder, with the best possible life for them as a 10 and the worst possible as a zero.

Liberal values are key: progressive taxation and freedom to make life choices

So, we’re back to money. 

Researchers have come up with a strong link between progressive taxation - a tax rate that increases as the taxable amount increases - and people’s assessment of how happy they are.

Progressive taxation leads to happiness via public and common goods such as health care, education, and public transportation that the taxation helps to fund. And ultimately, you guessed it, trust. People trust the money will be used and distributed wisely.

Again, in more equal societies, people trust each other more. And social trust contributes to the building of better institutions.

What about the high rates of suicide in Nordic countries?

If you look at the prevalence of positive emotions in various countries throughout the World Happiness reports, Latin America usually occupies the top, yet these countries do not even make it to the top 20 in the overall ranking for happiness.

On the other hand, Nordic countries come out as the happiest, but that’s not where people report the most frequent positive emotions.

In fact, as my colleague Tim Gallagher reported, the way people from the Scandinavian nations perceive themselves is quite melancholic.

Nordic countries have a historic association with high suicide rates. In 1990, for example, Finland’s suicide rate was so high that the country created and implemented the world’s first suicide prevention strategy.

Today, trends in the region have much improved, but Finland still ranks fourth in youth suicide rates.

Helliwell says the happiness model "fits perfectly" with the regrettable statistics.

For example, the measure that qualifies the quality of government "is very important in supporting people's life satisfaction, but not so important in preventing suicide," he said.

"Religious belief is very important in stopping suicides, but not so important in producing happiness with life. Divorce is bad for both, but it's worse for suicides than it is for life evaluations.

"Sweden, for example, with a high-quality government, high rates of divorces and low religious affiliation is going to have a higher predicted suicide rate, relative to their happiness".

Ultimately, this means that the same indicators that predict happiness are not necessarily linked with the likelihood of suicides.

The unfortunate trend could be explained by cultural factors, says Helliwell.

"We find that suicide, like some other kinds of anti-social behaviour, have a certain cultural aspect to them…just as you have addictions of various kinds being concentrated in regions because of a sort of local positive feedback," he told Euronews Next.

"In this case, it's negative feedback, in a sense, and people copying other people's unfortunate behaviour as a coping mechanism".

The weather doesn't have much influence on your overall happiness

The warmest annual average temperature in southwestern Finland is 6.5 °C. And from there, eastward and northward, the average temperature only decreases.

It is true that Nordic winters are long, dark and cold, and most of us associate warmer temperatures and bright sunny days with happiness. But findings from the report suggest the effect on the happiness score is quite insignificant.

People adapt to the weather, meaning heavy rain, snowstorms and sub-zero temperatures do not typically affect the life satisfaction of those who are used to living under those circumstances.

So, what can we do to be happy like the Nordics?

The Nordic countries have managed to enter a very virtuous cycle, where efficient and democratic institutions are able to provide citizens security, so that citizens trust institutions and each other, which leads them to vote for politicians that promise and deliver a successful welfare model.

However, there are some things you can actually do.

"We find people are much, much happier if they feel they're in an environment where people are going to watch their back. And it's really important to tell people that because they fail to understand all over the world how generous other people are," says Helliwell.

He says that the trust we place in others is in fact higher than what we take it to be. Lacking this trust makes us unhappy. Or at least, not happy like the Nordics.

Helliwell also says one of the reasons people underestimate the benevolence of their neighbours is because they don’t hear about it in the media.

"Which makes a case for good news and shows they are really important because it's what determines what you think of your neighbours," he said.

Russian FSB Chief Says US, UK, and Ukraine Could Have Been Involved in Moscow Terror Attack

Putin said the attack was committed by 'radical Islamists' but has hinted that Ukraine was involved.

by Dave DeCamp March 26, 2024

https://news.antiwar.com/2024/03/26/russian-fsb-chief-says-us-uk-and-ukraine-could-have-been-involved-in-moscow-terror-attack/

The head of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) said Tuesday that the US, the UK, and Ukraine could have been involved in the terrorist attack on a concert hall outside of Moscow that killed 139 people.

FSB chief Aleksandr Bortnikov told reporters that Russia was trying to identify everyone who was involved in the massacre and was asked if the US, Britain, and Ukraine were involved.

“We think that this is so. In any case, we are now talking about the information that we have. This is general information, but they [investigators] also have concrete results,” Bortnikov replied, according to RT.

The ISIS affiliate based in Afghanistan, known as Islamic State – Khorasan Province, or ISIS-K, has taken credit for the attack, a claim backed by the US. Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Monday that “radical Islamists” carried out the attack but suggested Ukraine could have been involved.

Putin also questioned the US assertion that ISIS-K was responsible. “We are seeing that the US, through various channels, is trying to convince its satellites and other countries of the world that, according to their intelligence, there is allegedly no Kyiv trace in the Moscow terror attack — that the bloody terrorist act was committed by followers of Islam, members of the Islamic State group,” he said. “Those who support the Kyiv regime don’t want to be accomplices in terror and sponsors of terrorism, but many questions remain.”

If Russia believes that Ukraine or any NATO country was in some way responsible for the Moscow terrorist attack, it could lead to a major escalation of the war in Ukraine. The Russian military has already escalated its missile strikes across Ukraine in response to the Ukrainian attacks inside Russia.

According to TASS, Bortnikov noted that Ukraine had been increasing its attacks on Russian territory and said US and British intelligence were involved in the operations. “There have been drone strikes, strikes by uncrewed boats at sea, and incursions by groups of saboteurs and terrorist organizations into our territory,” he said.

In recent weeks, Ukraine has launched heavy drone and artillery attacks on Russian territory. The Russian Volunteer Corps, a neo-Nazi militia made up of Russian volunteers that have US armored vehicles, launched ground incursions into Russian border regions from Ukraine.

Israel Is a Strategic Liability for the United States

The special relationship does not benefit Washington and is endangering U.S. interests across the globe.

MARCH 22, 2024 • COMMENTARY

By Jon Hoffman

https://www.cato.org/commentary/israel-strategic-liability-united-states#

U.S. President Joe Biden recently proclaimed that “there’s no going back to the [Middle East] status quo as it stood on Oct. 6.” But the truth is that Biden refuses to abandon the status quo, particularly regarding Washington’s so‐​called special relationship with Israel.

Unwavering U.S. support for Israel has been a consistent element of U.S. Middle East policy since the establishment of the state in 1948. President John F. Kennedy coined the phrase “special relationship” in 1962, explaining that Washington’s ties to the state were “really comparable only to that which it has with Britain over a wide range of world affairs.” By 2013, then‐​Vice President Biden argued that “it’s not only a long‐​standing moral commitment; it’s a strategic commitment.”

According to Biden, “if there were no Israel, we’d have to invent one.” In 2020, then‐​President Donald Trump cut through some of the fog, admitting that “we don’t have to be in the Middle East, other than we want to protect Israel.”

The core of the U.S.-Israel relationship is the unparalleled amount of aid that Washington bestows upon its ally. Israel is the top recipient of U.S. military aid, receiving more than $300 billion (adjusted for inflation) from the United States since World War II.

Washington continues to provide Israel with roughly $3.8 billion annually in addition to other arms deals and security benefits. (Some of the other top recipients of U.S. aid, such as Egypt and Jordan, receive large amounts in exchange for maintaining normalized relations with Israel). Israel and its supporters are hugely influential in Washington, commanding attention on both sides of the political aisle through different forms of direct and indirect lobbying and influence.

What exactly the United States gets in return for this unidirectional relationship remains unclear.

Proponents claim that unfaltering support is critical for the advancement of U.S. interests in the Middle East. Sen. Lindsey Graham, for example, once referred to Israel as the “eyes and ears of America” in the region. While intelligence‐​sharing may have some strategic value, the past five months of war in Gaza have made clear the numerous negative effects of the relationship, namely how Washington’s emphatic embrace of Israel has undermined its strategic position in the Middle East while damaging its global image. The war has starkly highlighted the underlying failures of U.S. Middle East policy.

It’s past time for a fundamental reevaluation of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

ISRAEL’S CAMPAIGN of collective punishment in Gaza has been historic in scale. According to the Gazan health authorities, the official death toll across the enclave is now roughly 32,000 people, the vast majority of whom are women and children. U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin recently claimed that 25,000 women and children alone had been killed as a result of the war in Gaza. While some, including Biden himself, have raised concern over whether the casualty figures coming out of Gaza are inflated, others argue that the death toll is likely even higher because ongoing hostilities prevent researchers from the accounting for thousands of people whose fate or whereabouts are unknown.

Across the strip, civilian infrastructure has been systematically decimated, and starvation and disease are spreading rapidly. The situation inside Gaza is so bad that the U.S. government—alongside other countries, such as France, Jordan, and Egypt—is now airlifting aid into the strip, and the United States is deploying 1,000 troops to build a pier off the shore of the enclave in order to break the siege that its supposed ally—using U.S. weapons—refuses to lift.

Despite this, the Biden administration has continued to supply Israel with advanced weaponry—including both smart and “dumb” bombs as well as tank and artillery ammunition—approving more than 100 foreign military sales to Israel since Oct. 7, 2023, and invoking emergency rules on two different occasions to circumvent Congress. The United States recently issued its third veto in the U.N. Security Council since the conflict began, being the only country to block a resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian cease‐​fire. This is in addition to another $14 billion in military aid for Israel recently passed by the Senate.

It’s difficult to fathom that this war could get worse, but all indicators point in that direction, as Israel insists that it will continue to push into the southern Gaza city of Rafah, despite U.S. objections, where more than 1.5 million Palestinians—exceeding half the population of Gaza—have fled.

The Biden administration has said it opposes an invasion of Rafah “without a credible and executable plan for ensuring the safety of and support for the civilians.” In an interview with MSNBC, Biden spoke of a “red line” in response to a question about a possible military operation in Gaza, saying, “[we] cannot have another 30,000 more Palestinians dead,” but he then immediately stated that “the defense of Israel is still critical, so there’s no red line.” This incoherence not only negates Biden’s leverage, but also binds Washington to whatever policies the far‐​right government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ultimately adopts.

Unsurprisingly, Netanyahu remains adamant that he will not bow to Biden’s ethereal red line by calling off his plan for a ground invasion of Rafah. Netanyahu recently stated that he made it “supremely clear” to Biden that he is “determined to complete the elimination of these battalions in Rafah, and there’s no way to do that except by going in on the ground.”

Israel has demonstrated no long‐​term political strategy in Gaza beyond the systematic destruction of the enclave and killing of its inhabitants. Netanyahu—whose support has reached all‐​time lows, and who faces growing protests calling for early elections—seems to know that once this ends, his time in power is over.

Yet Biden has been either unable or unwilling to leverage the special relationship with Israel or sway Netanyahu, who has previously boasted of his ability to manipulate the United States.

The White House has begun strategically leaking reports of Biden’s increasing “frustration” with Netanyahu, and the administration is becoming more vocal in its support for a temporary pause to the fighting. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer delivered an unprecedented public condemnation of Netanyahu on March 14, arguing that he has “lost his way” while also calling for new elections in Israel.

But empty rhetoric without policy change will accomplish nothing.

SYMBOLIC ACTS—such as the recent U.S. executive order sanctioning two Israeli settler outposts in the West Bank or Biden’s decision to reestablish the position that Israeli settlement expansion is “inconsistent with international law”—is not going to stop the carnage in Gaza, absolve Washington of complicity, or contribute to future stability.

Likely in direct response to these actions, Israel just authorized the construction of 3,400 new houses in West Bank settlements amid historic levels of violence against Palestinians; the United States has done little to punish or halt the move.

Netanyahu’s recently revealed postwar plan contains little more than a plan for the prolonged military occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, which would guarantee future instability. Since Oct. 7, Netanyahu has repeatedly bragged that he is “proud” to have prevented the emergence of a Palestinian state, promising that he alone can continue stopping one.

In contrast to Netanyahu’s plan, the Biden administration’s day‐​after blueprint includes a vision for a “pathway” toward a Palestinian state. Notably, though, it contains no concrete plans, much less intent, for implementation on the part of the United States or Israel.

The war in Gaza should demonstrate that trying to sidestep the future of the Palestinian people is a foolish strategy. But for Netanyahu—and for Biden, by extension—it has perversely deepened a commitment to that status quo.

Washington’s unwavering support for Israel amid the war in Gaza has also had disastrous regional ramifications. From the Eastern Mediterranean to the Red Sea, a series of different flash points risk dragging the region—and the United States—into full‐​scale war. Additionally, Washington’s continued support of Israel’s brutal campaign in Gaza has tarnished Washington’s image as a lodestar of liberal values, making a mockery of claims about a U.S.-led “liberal international order.”

A regional war would be disastrous for the Middle East and the interests of the United States. Nor would such a war be a matter of Israel’s survival. No state—including Iran—is about to push Israel into the sea. Israel’s military superiority, nuclear arsenal, and strategic alignment with the majority of governments in the region guarantee its security against existential challenges.

Washington’s stance allows Israel to act with impunity while bending U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East in pursuit of objectives that lie well beyond Washington’s interests. U.S. interests in the region include protecting the safety and prosperity of the American people and preventing the emergence of a regional hegemon while upholding the values that the country claims to stand for. Knee‐​jerk support for Israel does not advance any of these.

The pathologies of the special relationship with Israel have hindered Washington’s strategic maneuverability in the Middle East and inhibited U.S. leaders’ ability to even think clearly about the region. In late 2023, for example, Biden defamed his own country when he declared that “were there no Israel, there wouldn’t be a Jew in the world who was safe.”

This kind of thinking makes sound statecraft impossible.

THE UNEVEN U.S. RELATIONSHIP with Israel has, for example, hindered Washington’s ability to engage diplomatically with Iran while pushing the United States toward the use of military force there.

Over the past five months, Israel has repeatedly attempted to pressure the United States into direct confrontation with Iran, despite this being anathema to U.S. interests and regional stability. High‐​level military drills between Israel and the United States, Israel’s recent attack on major gas pipelines in Iran, and continued escalation between Iranian‐​backed groups and the United States across the Middle East risk sparking a regionwide catastrophe.

Washington’s engagement with Israel—like any other state—should be driven by the pursuit of concrete U.S. interests. Even U.S. relations with treaty allies such as France or South Korea feature debates, disagreements, and the normal push and pull of diplomacy. By contrast, the special relationship with Israel has fueled some of the worst actors in Israeli politics, encouraged ruinous policies, and generally done violence to the long‐​term interest of both countries.

Washington’s subsidies for Israeli policies have insulated Israel from the costs of those policies. What incentive does Israel face to change course when the most powerful state in the world refuses to condition its profound levels of political, economic, and military support? Were Israel forced to bear the full costs of its policies in the West Bank, for example, its pro‐​settler agenda would become harder to sustain.

A special relationship with Israel does virtually nothing for the United States while actively undermining U.S. strategic interests and often doing violence to the values that Washington claims to stand for.

It’s time to “normalize” the United States’ relationship with Israel. This does not mean making Israel an enemy of the United States, but rather approaching Israel the same way that Washington should approach any other foreign nation: from arm’s‑length.

No longer would decisions about military aid, arms sales, or diplomatic cover be rooted in path dependency or muscle memory, but rather in officials’ perceptions of the U.S. interests at stake. Instead of enabling, shielding, and subsidizing Israeli policy, the United States should reorient its relationship with Israel on the basis of concrete U.S. interests.

This would entail Washington ending its willingness to turn a blind eye to Israeli affronts to U.S. interests, by providing huge amounts of aid, and pushing for a swift end to this disastrous war and a permanent political solution to the Israeli‐​Palestinian conflict.

The Biden administration faces a choice: continue following the Netanyahu government into the abyss, or forcefully pressure it to change course.