By Thomas Friedman
To grasp why Israel’s severe strike against Hezbollah poses such a significant risk to Iran, Russia, North Korea, and even China, it’s essential to view it against the backdrop of the broader conflict that has emerged in place of the Cold War as the current paradigm of international interactions.
Following Hamas’s incursion into Israel on October 7, I contended that we have moved past the Cold War, or even the post-Cold War era. We are now in the post-post-Cold War: a conflict between an informal “coalition of inclusion” — respectable nations, not necessarily all democracies, who envision their future as being optimally shaped by a U.S.-led alliance promoting global economic integration, openness, and collaboration to tackle worldwide issues, such as climate change — against a “coalition of resistance,” spearheaded by Russia, Iran, and North Korea: oppressive, authoritarian regimes that utilize their resistance to the U.S.-led world of inclusion as a justification for militarizing their societies and maintaining strict control over power.
China has been navigating between these two factions as its economy relies on access to the coalition of inclusion while its leadership resonates with many of the authoritarian impulses and objectives of the coalition of resistance.
You must evaluate the conflicts in Ukraine, the Gaza Strip, and Lebanon within the framework of this global confrontation. Ukraine was striving to join the world of inclusion in Europe — seeking liberation from Russia’s influence and aspiring to join the European Union — while Israel and Saudi Arabia were aiming to broaden the world of inclusion in the Middle East by normalizing diplomatic relations.
Russia sought to prevent Ukraine from integrating into the West (the EU and NATO), and Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah endeavored to thwart Israel from joining the East (by establishing ties with Saudi Arabia). If Ukraine succeeded in joining the EU, the inclusive vision of a “whole and free” Europe would be nearly complete, leaving Vladimir Putin’s kleptocracy effectively isolated.
Moreover, if Israel were permitted to establish normalization with Saudi Arabia, it would not only broaden the coalition of inclusion in the region — already expanded by the Abraham Accords which established connections between Israel and other Arab states — but it would virtually isolate Iran and its reckless affiliates: Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq, all of which have been leading their nations toward collapse.
In truth, it is difficult to overstate the extent to which Hezbollah and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, who was eliminated by an Israeli strike last Friday, were loathed in Lebanon and various parts of the Sunni and Christian Arab community due to the manner in which they had abducted Lebanon and transformed it into a hub for Iranian imperialism.
Over the weekend, I spoke with Orit Perlov, who monitors Arab social media for Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies. She described the surge of social media messages from throughout Lebanon and the Arab world rejoicing over Hezbollah’s defeat and urging the Lebanese government to declare a unilateral ceasefire so that the Lebanese army could regain control of southern Lebanon from Hezbollah and restore calm to the border. The Lebanese do not wish for Beirut to suffer the same fate as Gaza and are genuinely fearful of a return to civil war, Perlov explained. Nasrallah had already dragged the Lebanese into a conflict with Israel they had no desire for, but Iran commanded it.
The Biden-Harris administration has been constructing a network of alliances to strengthen the strategic framework of the ad hoc coalition of inclusion — spanning from Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and Australia in the Far East, through India all the way to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, and then up through the EU and NATO. The cornerstone of this entire initiative was President Joe Biden’s team’s proposed normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which the Saudis are willing to pursue, contingent upon Israel agreeing to enter negotiations with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank over a two-state resolution.
And here lies the crux of the matter.
Pay careful attention to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address before the U.N. General Assembly on Friday. He comprehends the struggle between the coalitions of “resistance” and “inclusion” that I am referring to. In fact, it was a central theme in his U.N. speech.
How so? Netanyahu showcased two maps during his presentation. One was labeled “The Blessing,” while the other was called “The Curse.” “The Curse” depicted Syria, Iraq, and Iran in black as a blocking coalition separating the Middle East from Europe. The second map, “The Blessing,” illustrated the Middle East with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan in green and featured a red two-way arrow traversing them, symbolizing a bridge linking the world of inclusion in Asia with that in Europe.
However, upon closer examination of Netanyahu’s “Curse” map, it showed Israel — yet no borders with Gaza and the Israeli-occupied West Bank (implying annexation — the objective of this Israeli administration).
And that is the crux. The narrative Netanyahu wishes to convey to the world is that Iran and its proxies are the principal barriers to the realm of inclusion extending from Europe through the Middle East over to the Asia-Pacific.
I must respectfully disagree. The linchpin of this entire alliance is a Saudi-Israel normalization hinged on reconciling with moderate Palestinians.
If Israel were to proceed and open discussions regarding two states for two peoples with a reformed Palestinian Authority, which has already recognized the Oslo peace agreement, it would deliver a diplomatic knockout blow to accompany and cement the military knockout that Israel has just inflicted on Hezbollah and Hamas.
It would completely isolate the forces of “resistance” in the region and dismantle their fraudulent shield — that they are the protectors of the Palestinian cause. Nothing would shake Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Russia — or even China — more profoundly.
Yet to achieve this, Netanyahu would have to take a political risk even greater than the military risk he recently assumed in eliminating the leadership of Hezbollah, also known as “The Party of God.”
Netanyahu would need to distance himself from the Israeli “Party of God” — the coalition of far-right Jewish settler supremacists and messianists who seek to ensure that Israel continually maintains dominion over all territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, with no border distinctions in between — mirroring Netanyahu’s U.N. map. These parties sustain Netanyahu’s position in power, which means he would have to replace them with Israeli centrist factions, which I am confident would collaborate with him on such an initiative.
Thus, you see the primary challenge of our time: The contest between the realm of inclusion and the world of resistance hinges on many factors, but none as critical — today — as Netanyahu’s readiness to follow up his strike against the “Party of God” in Lebanon with a similar political strike against the “Party of God” in Israel.
