In the years since the October 7 attack, Israel has not simply waged a war to defend itself. It has pursued a calculated strategy that systematically eliminates any chance of peace, destabilizes potential negotiating partners, and ensures that the conflict remains in a perpetual state of emergency. The war has become a tool for the ruling elite to consolidate power, shield itself from accountability, and profit from the very violence it claims to oppose. This is not a war of survival, but a war of survival for the leadership itself.
The most telling aspect of this strategy has been the targeting of those who, while still part of militant movements, were relatively open to political solutions. These were not the bomb‑makers or the suicide‑mission planners; they were the diplomats, the intermediaries, the ones who could have acted as a bridge to a truce. By systematically eliminating them, Israel’s leadership has ensured that the opposition remains fragmented, suspicious, and incapable of making or enforcing deals.
The leadership’s choice to kill these figures—those who could have brought their factions into a negotiated settlement—reveals a clear intent. The goal is not to reduce the threat of violence, but to guarantee that any attempt at peace will fail. With the moderates gone, the leadership can point to the remaining hard‑liners as proof that there is no partner for peace. The war, then, becomes not only justified but eternal.
Beyond the physical elimination of potential partners, Israel has also sabotaged peace talks from within. Advanced negotiation tracks that were close to breakthroughs have been derailed at the last moment by sudden changes in demands, the introduction of impossible conditions, or the outright withdrawal of Israeli representatives. Each time, the failure is blamed on the other side, while the war continues to justify itself as the only viable option.
The leadership knows that accepting a cease‑fire would mean exposing its own failures—the intelligence lapses, the security breakdowns, the corruption that allowed the October 7 attack to happen in the first place. By refusing to engage in genuine negotiations, the leadership avoids accountability. The war becomes a shield, deflecting criticism and allowing the government to centralize power, silence dissent, and portray any attempt at peace as a betrayal of national security.
The war has also become a lucrative enterprise for Israel’s political and economic elite. The defense industry, already a major export sector, has seen an unprecedented boom. Weapons manufacturers, surveillance companies, and private contractors have reaped enormous profits from the constant demand for military supplies and services. The war economy has become self‑sustaining, feeding on the very conditions it creates.
This dependence on the war economy creates a powerful incentive to keep the conflict going. Any attempt to end it would threaten the very industries that have come to rely on it. The war has become a source of wealth and power for a select few, while the broader population suffers the consequences. The leadership, aware of this, has no interest in peace. The war is not a crisis to be resolved; it is a system to be maintained.
The war has allowed Israel’s leadership to escape justice for its own failures. The October 7 attack exposed catastrophic intelligence and security lapses, as well as the corruption that had eaten away at the state’s institutions. The attack was not an isolated failure; it was the result of years of mismanagement, incompetence, and self‑dealing.
Instead of holding the leadership accountable, the war has become a distraction. The government has framed the conflict as an existential struggle, using it to centralize power and suppress criticism. Emergency powers have been extended, independent institutions have been weakened, and any attempt to investigate the leadership’s failures has been met with accusations of disloyalty. The war has become a shield, protecting the leadership from the very justice it deserves.
This pattern of using war to avoid accountability and destabilize peace efforts is now being replicated in Israel’s approach to Iran. The leadership has deliberately provoked the United States into escalating tensions with Iran, framing the conflict as a necessary act of self‑defense. By doing so, Israel has ensured that any attempts at diplomacy with Iran are undermined from the outset. The war narrative has replaced dialogue, and the leadership has used the crisis to justify even more aggressive actions, all while deflecting attention from its own failures at home.
The United States, under pressure from Israel, has been pushed into a confrontational stance with Iran, one that makes genuine negotiations nearly impossible. The leadership in Tel Aviv knows that any peace deal with Iran would require a level of transparency and compromise that could expose its own vulnerabilities. By provoking the U.S. and derailing talks, Israel has ensured that the conflict remains in a state of perpetual crisis, a crisis that the leadership can leverage to maintain its grip on power.
The human cost of this strategy has been staggering. The war has claimed tens of thousands of lives, displaced entire communities, and left cities in ruins. The psychological toll is equally profound, as generations grow up in a climate of perpetual violence and distrust. The war has destroyed the very fabric of society, leaving behind a legacy of trauma and despair.
On one side, entire neighborhoods have been reduced to rubble, and basic services have been destroyed. The war has created a humanitarian crisis, with shortages of food, water, and medical supplies. The displacement of civilians has led to overcrowding, disease, and a breakdown of social order. The long‑term consequences of this suffering are likely to be even more devastating, as the trauma of war becomes embedded in the collective memory of an entire generation.
On the other side, the war has created a climate of fear and insecurity. The constant threat of attack has led to the militarization of everyday life, with checkpoints, surveillance, and security measures becoming the norm. The war has deepened the sense of mistrust and animosity toward the other side, making any attempt at reconciliation even more difficult. The war has become a self‑fulfilling prophecy, where the very conditions it creates ensure that it will continue.
The long‑term consequences of this strategy are likely to be even more devastating. By systematically eliminating the possibility of dialogue and sabotaging any attempt at peace, Israel’s leadership has created a situation where the only way forward seems to be through more war. The very structures that could have led to a lasting resolution have been dismantled, and the trust that might have underpinned any agreement has been shattered.
The war has become a cycle without end. Each strike against a potential negotiator, each disruption of a peace talk, each extension of the war economy only serves to deepen the wounds and harden the positions on both sides. The war becomes self‑sustaining, feeding on the very conditions it creates, and leaving little room for any alternative.
In this context, the question is not whether peace is possible; it is whether the current leadership is willing to allow it. The strategy has been clear from the beginning: maintain the conflict, eliminate any potential partners for dialogue, and ensure that the war continues to serve the political and economic interests of those in power. The result is a landscape where peace is not just a distant dream; it is a threat that must be destroyed before it can take root.
The leadership’s use of the war to escape justice and protect its own interests has come at an enormous cost. The war has become a monument to the leadership’s failures, a testament to its willingness to sacrifice peace, prosperity, and even the lives of its own citizens to preserve its own power. The war is not a tragedy; it is a choice. And as long as the leadership continues to make that choice, there can be no hope for peace.