He promised simple, total victory. Not only did he fail to achieve it, but he also plunged Israel into a ‘diplomatic tsunami’
Just ahead of the second anniversary of the October 7 attacks, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged that Israel should transform into a “super-Sparta.”
After nearly two years of relentless conflict and growing international isolation, the comparison to an ancient, heavily militarized and besieged city-state struck many as peculiar. A number of Israelis — including prominent business leaders — swiftly and strongly voiced their disagreement.
Israelis are used to their government having to defend its condemned military conduct, but a conflict risking its ties to the world seemed, for many, a step too far. Mr Netanyahu then rowed back and said he was talking specifically about the arms industry and security.
It was a telling moment in the ongoing debate over whether Israel is truly winning its longest war — the conflict in Gaza. Despite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s repeated assurances of “total victory” and claims of significant military gains, growing evidence suggests that many Israelis are unconvinced.
Two years on, The National spoke with Israeli analysts and commentators who have been closely monitoring the nation’s internal dynamics and international standing to understand how the conversation about victory has evolved. Their insights — supported by recent polling data — reveal a far more complex picture, even as Israel and Hamas move toward accepting a US-brokered plan to end the war.
“It’s a mixed bag. I don’t think there is a way out of the very bottom line that we lost the war on October 7,” said Nimrod Novik, an Israeli peace negotiator and former senior adviser to the late Israeli prime minister Shimon Peres.
“We demonstrated the amazing intelligence and operational capabilities of our security services in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and, primarily, Iran. Even vis-à-vis the Houthis, we restored our confidence in our security establishment, which collapsed after October 7,” he added.
“At the same time, the fact that we’ve failed to accomplish set objectives in Gaza, vis-à-vis the weakest of our adversaries, is a major stain on this scorecard. That has nothing to do with the security establishment in my judgment. It derives from the fact that the war has been dragging on beyond its justified and purposeful phase.”
Former senior Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas had a similar assessment about Gaza, and argued that Israel’s regional victories are less significant than Mr Netanyahu proclaims.
“Netanyahu has effectively lost the war,” said Mr. Pinkas, “in the sense that he bears responsibility for the disaster and humiliation of October 7. He has failed to defeat Hamas to the point of surrender. Remember all his grand phrases — decimate, annihilate, obliterate, total victory. Yes, Hamas has suffered heavy blows, but none of those promises were truly fulfilled.”
“In his mind, he’s winning because he deludes himself into thinking that he actually reshaped the Middle East, but it was temporary.”
Falsehood of statements
Referring to the departure of Syria’s former leader Bashar Al Assad, Mr Pinkas stated that “Syria was unstable to begin with, so that didn’t change much.”
“There’s no question that the so-called Iranian web has been weakened, but how does that change Israel’s geopolitical position? It doesn’t, because Israel is now seen very suspiciously around the Middle East.”
Both agreed that a barrier to any sense of Israeli victory was the very battle that began the war: the one with Hamas.
For reasons seemingly unrelated to national security, the military has repeatedly been ordered to prolong the war. It is now no secret that the armed forces are increasingly reluctant to do so. The current Gaza campaign is being carried out at a deliberately slow pace, in the hope that diplomatic efforts will intervene to bring it to an end — as the military sees little strategic value in reoccupying Gaza.
The argument comes after the army killed more than 65,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and destroyed most of Gaza.
“Netanyahu pursued a wrong strategy for a decade of weakening Palestinian moderates in the Palestinian Authority and solidifying the control of the radicals in Hamas in Gaza. That is a strategic failure,” Mr Novik said.
Mr Pinkas claimed that the Gaza war demonstrated the falsehood of Mr Netanyahu’s “longtime premise that you can remodel the Middle East and reach accommodation with the Arab world without dealing with the Palestinians”.
“What happened on October 7 showed the exact opposite,” he added.
Last month, several countries, including France, recognised Palestinian statehood. A Gaza ceasefire plan represented by US President Donald Trump, despite the ambiguity in it, also acknowledged the right of self-determination.
The Israeli Prime Minister said he approved the plan, but then went out to claim that the war would not stop before the “total victory” over Hamas.
Diplomatic tsunami
Israel’s increasing international isolation, amid anger over its conduct during the war and mounting accusations that it is committing genocide against the Palestinians, were also a major factor in denying any sense of Israeli victory.
The phenomenon is known in Israel as the “diplomatic tsunami,” a term that took on new weight after many of its closest western allies recognised a Palestinian state.
Polling from the leading Israeli think Tank IDI in September showed a “notable shift” in what Israelis regard as the main threat to their country since last year. A full-scale multi-front war just remains the highest threat, but “international isolation and boycotts” more than doubled in a year and a “loss of American support for Israel” almost doubled, too.
“Israel is isolated, condemned globally, and public opinion in most countries, including in the US has turned against Israel in the last two years. There’s very little to show for his supposedly strategic accomplishments in the Middle East,” said Mr Pinkas.
A recent survey by The New York Times showed that support for Israel among US voters has declined 13 percentage points over the past year.
Isolation has also raised significant fears over the well-being of Israel’s economy. Economist David Rosenberg said the economy has fared surprisingly well up until now, but major challenges are emerging, driven by international anger at Israel.
“The economy hasn’t imploded. You could even say things are settled into a reasonable growth trajectory. This is an unusual, even by Israeli standards, but the economy is used to war interruptions of various kinds,” Mr Rosenberg said.
Mounting evidence of sanctions and business-to-business and consumer boycotts is a danger, however, Mr Rosenberg added.
“The latest figures on exports to Europe show a sharp decline. It’s not been long enough to be sure it’s a trend, but it’s worrying that it’s coming as public opinion in Europe, Israel’s biggest trading partner, is running against Israel,” he said.
Countries like Germany and Spain have recently hit Israel with major arms embargoes and, in the case of Spain, have cancelled arms deals.
The next big turn in the debate about victory will be the elections. By electoral law, unless Mr Netanyahu manages to change it as some believe he will try to, these will have to take place at the latest in a year. There is a chance they happen even sooner if his government becomes unviable, which is quite possible amid tensions in the cabinet over the latest deal.
Until then, there is little certainty about where Mr Netanyahu will take Israel.
