> it's huge sums of money flowing through our political system and effectively buying our politicians
I disagree strongly with this assertion. But for sake of argument, let's assume it's true: American politics is permanently captured to Israel's interests.
That still doesn't explain this war. "I think most folks understand that this war was a misfire for the United States, but I suspect it may end up being a terrible misfire for Israel as well. Israeli security and economic prosperity both depend to a significant degree on the US-Israeli security partnership and this war seems to be one more step in a process that very evidently imperils that partnership. Suspicion of Israel – which, let us be honest, often descends into rank, bigoted antisemitism, but it is also possible to critique Israel, a country with policies, without being antisemitic – is now openly discussed in both parties. More concerning is polling suggesting that not only is Israel underwater with the American public, but more Americans sympathize with Palestinians than Israelis for the first time in American history."
If, on the other hand, we acknowledge "Netanyahu...is playing an extremely short game because it benefits him politically and personally to do so," we can allow for similar levels of narcicism and stupidity in the U.S.
Israel is currently busy annexing southern Lebanon, and I don't think it's at all decided how the "hearts and minds battle" in the US will eventually end. (Or how important the popular support even is)
So right now, the state of the war is a win for Israel.
Israel isn't "annexing southern Lebanon". Israel already controlled southern Lebanon and withdrew. Even recently Israel was deeper in southern Lebanon and withdrew - and is now paying the price for that. Israel was already in Beirut .. and not so long ago ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Beirut )
Israel is pushing back Hezbollah that's attacking Israel's north. Hezbollah decided to join the war and it's firing at Israeli civilians and towns with statistical weapons (rockets).
It does seem like it's at least some sort of short term win for Israel but it remains to be seen what the long term game looks like.
And incidentally destroying all villages and emptying the area of all residents while they at it, then destroying the bridges that connect the region to the rest of the country.
Katz is indeed still talking about a "buffer zone", while Smotrich demands a "permanent change of borders". The settler movement has already drawn maps.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-security/2026-03-...
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-politics/2026-03-...
> Israel already controlled southern Lebanon and withdrew.
I don't get what you want to say with that statement. It was already theirs to begin with?
I meant to say if Israel really wanted it then it already had it.
It is a requirement under international law to let civilians evacuate areas where fighting is happening. If Israel accomodates that then they're engaging in ethnic cleansing. If they don't then they're engaging in genocide. Maybe the anti-Israelis should spell a more detailed and acceptable plan of how Israel can get Lebanon to stop lobbing rockets into its cities. If Hezbollah is using villages as cover then they become military objective. Check out what villages on the Ukraine/Russia frontlines look like or in any other war. Hezbollah fired hundreds of rockets already from inside the city of Tyre at Israel. Many armies would just flatten it with artillery under this situation.
Smotritch and the settler movement don't get to decide.
But yes, the argument that if Israel doesn't extract a price for aggression is gaining momentum over time. Because it seems nothing else works. Lebanon has no reason to attack Israel. It's not "occupied", it has no "right of resistance", or whatever other bullshit reasons people give to the right of others to lob rockets into Israeli population centers and terrorize its civilians. The Lebanese government gets it as well but unfortunately has no ability to control Hezbollah who are loyal to Iran.
Either way at this time it is not being annexed and there is no plan to annex it. What will likely happen is that some buffer zone will remain occupied until the Lebanese government and UN resolutions decisions demanding Hezbollah is disarmed are applied. If Hezbollah keeps rearming and keeps attacking Israel then we can expect that buffer zone to keep growing over the long term and the retaliation from Israel to become as severe as required to remove that threat. The main change in Israel's policy following Oct 7th is that it will not get into a scenario where it can be surprised again and it will not allow enemy forces to build up the capability to surprise it.
> how important the popular support even is
To see the effect of losing popularity, see how AIPAC's power in the Democratic party has begun to wane following their defeat in New Jersey.
A common mistake those deploying money in politics make is forgetting that the endgame is votes. The money helps buy votes. But if you're losing votes, you're losing votes.
> right now, the state of the war is a win for Israel
If hostilities end right now, yes. There is zero indication that endpoint is proximate.
> If, on the other hand, we acknowledge "Netanyahu...is playing an extremely short game because it benefits him politically and personally to do so," we can allow for similar levels of narcicism and stupidity in the U.S.
Sure. I don't doubt that many US politicians would start a costly war if it benefitted them. But who are the US politicians it has benefitted?
Trump hasn't gained anything from this war. Nor has Rubio or anyone else in his administration. Netanyahu, however, has benefitted politically and personally, even if only in the short term. Any effort to understand or explain the war should incorporate that.
That is why this conflict is so interesting and momentous, this is a fundamental change in the Middle East.
Israel had 2 major opponents remaining the region: Iraq and Iran.
We invaded Iraq and regime-changed them at the behest of neocons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...
>Calls for regime change in Iraq
>Shortly after the September 11 attacks, the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, specifically advocating regime change through "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq". The letter suggested that "any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq", even if no evidence linked Iraq to the September 11 attacks.
>https://www.twf.org/News/Y2004/0111-Before911.html
The neocons are/were a group of American Zionists, both Jewish and Christian.
Now we are working to eliminate the only remaining rival to Israel in the region: Iran.
Israel will be free to grow into a global superpower after this is complete, Israel is the only nuclear power in the region, they sit at the nexus of the eastern and western hemispheres and on top of abundant energy reserves. _They will not need US support anymore_. This is the fundamental gamble that they are taking with this war. They know that they will lose US popular support both on the left and the right, but if it pays off they will not need that support anymore and will be free to dominate the region.