It seems that the entirety of Israel’s political class is certain that Israel’s demand for “security” can only be met by unending violence and that the U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding is a threat to that requirement, particularly in Lebanon.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may have praised President Trump during his Monday night press conference, but “Anyone familiar with Netanyahu knows that listening to him speaking is rarely the best way to understand where he stands,” wrote Haaretz columnist David Issacharoff yesterday. “For that, he has his zealous media mouthpieces—whether on far-right Channel 14 or on mainstream networks brought in to ‘balance’ the panels.” Those mouthpieces, Issacharoff reports, addressed Trump in the only language he really understands: profanity.
Issachoroff names several such commentators, but singles out one, Jacob Bardugo, “who referred to Trump and Vance as ‘the modern Chamberlain.’ He described the deal as ‘worse’ than Barack Obama’s 2015 agreement. He went on to say that ‘seeking salvation in Washington is fundamentally misguided’ and that ‘relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from elsewhere.’”
The Trump Administration’s response to these right-wing attacks was delivered by JD Vance, who on Tuesday described the critics as having fallen for “Iranian propaganda,” adding that “they’re proposing an endless conflict. They want this to go on until every bomb has dropped or until every Iranian is dead.”
“Vance, whose skepticism toward foreign interventions is part of his own American nationalism, makes a correct observation here: It was never going to be enough for Israel. It is perfectly logical for Vance and his boss to look at these outbursts and conclude that Israel is profoundly ungrateful for what the U.S. did in launching this war,” Issachoroff writes. “The saga exposes ever more how Israel’s post-October 7 security doctrine has been dangerously delusional. Driven by an ultranationalist ideology, it treats limitless violence as the pathway to achieving all its fantasies—from toppling the Iranian regime to emptying Gaza of Palestinians and building settlements in southern Lebanon.”
Netanyahu’s left-wing opposition is no better, posturing as it is for national elections expected by October. In Israel, opposition to the emerging framework is not uniform in its reasoning, but much of the Jewish-Zionist political spectrum is converging around one demand: No US-Iran deal should restrict Israel’s freedom of action in Lebanon, reported The Jerusalem Post. They are trying mightily to prevent the linking of Iran with Lebanon, as the Iranians have been demanding.
“Taken together, the Israeli reaction is not a single political response,” the Post reports. Coalition hard-liners reject any arrangement that limits Israeli military action. Opposition figures across the Zionist left, center, and right accuse Netanyahu of mishandling the relationship with Washington and allowing Lebanon to be folded into the Iran file.
“Arab lawmakers see the possible agreement as an opportunity to stop the fighting and reduce civilian suffering. But across much of the Jewish-Zionist political spectrum, the central demand is the same: No agreement with Iran should restrict Israel’s ability to act against Hezbollah in Lebanon.”
