Ori Goldberg
origoldberg22.substack.com / July 2, 2026
Perhaps the most difficult element for the Israeli public to recognize or accept in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Iran and the United States was the fact that Israel is not a side to the emerging agreement. True, the potential for greater regional implications does include Israel (with regard to Lebanon and Gaza). True as well, it appears that the Trump administration is ready and willing to support Israel’s intensification of bombings in Lebanon alongside the bombing and the starvation in Gaza. Proof for this comes not from direct statements but from superimposed silence. Senior American leaders are not speaking their minds. The last time they did was when VP Vance told senior Israelis that Israel could not “kill your way out of solving every national security problem that you have”. Vance’s approach came in response to statements made by National Security minister Ben Gvir. It is likely that they were meant as advice rather than criticism, attempting to create distance between the Netanyahu government and the Israeli “extremists”. Vance’s statement also added to the creation of two “camps” within the Trump administration, each one led by the most popular hopefuls to succeed Trump in 2028. In any case, after those statements the Trump administration did not admonish Israel officially but also refrained from offering direct support of Israel.
A major regional deal, one potentially struck between Israel’s greatest patron and its greatest enemy no less, that does not include Israel. This was a major shock. Even those who talked about Trump’s “betrayal” and referred to his sudden acceptance and recognition of the Islamic Republic were struck by the novelty of the situation. If Israel is not a part, how can it enforce its impunity? If Israel is not a party to the agreement, what use was the “joint” war that began in June of this year? What did Israel fight for if fighting had lost context and framework? While, as I mentioned above, an agreement of sorts began to take form in Lebanon and Gaza returned to its genocidal status quo, a more comprehensive answer evolved quickly. Its most refined expression was articulated by PM Netanyahu in a rare interview to Israeli TV’s Channel 14, a channel devoted to the personal glorification of Netanyahu himself alongside a vigorous celebration of hard right values as well as strongly worded attacks on the Israeli liberal camp. The main subject of these attacks is the coalition of groups that considers the replacement of the Netanyahu government as the most immediate challenge to the Israeli state. This loosely organized group, including within it political parties and civil organizations, is often referred to as Ralab, a Hebrew acronym standing for Rak Lo Bibi (Anything but Bibi).
The interview was given to the most popular show on this channel, The Patriots, a rapid-fire polemic format based on brief and violently phrased answers to political questions. It is not an environment one would necessarily identify with a Prime Ministerial interview, and was very clearly constructed as a means for Netanyahu to convey brief, pointed and aggressive statements. This specific interview was given on June 30th. When asked when “the war” would be over, Netanyahu replied: “the pursuit of total victory will never be over. If you want to live in the world and in the Middle East you have to be very, very strong.” Not a word of criticism came from Netanyahu’s rivals. In fact, not a word of criticism came from Israeli liberals and civil society. The only critics were the usual suspects, the ones who have spent their entire lives criticizing Israel’s permanent penchant for war and the deepening roots of Zionism in forcing the disappearance of the Palestinians. As these number in the thousands (among the Jewish Israeli public), they are not considered a political camp worthy of any real effort by the Israeli center.
Let’s take a closer look at Netanyahu’s choice of words. He did not provide contextual statements such as “we will stay in Lebanon until Hizballah has been totally disarmed”. He leaves chores like those to his loyal Defense Minister, Israel Katz, who is only too happy to be his master’s voice. Netanyahu provided a paradigmatic statement, an articulation of Israel’s post-7.10 national security doctrine. The war will never be over. The war is about life itself (no the quality of life). The war requires tremendous strength, a resource measured by the ability to attack one’s enemies with complete discretion (or better yet, “complete freedom of action”, a phrase coined by Netanyahu’s former arch-rival and direct CO during Netanyahu’s mandatory military service, Ehud Barak. Israeli “security” transcends politics in the public mind.) and, obviously, impunity which is both a condition and a result of “being very, very strong”. To reiterate, Israel is on the verge of official campaign season. There is literally no time like the present to stand out with an alternative political message, to try and shape a new base or even to roll in the mud (how we wish for mud in this July heat) tussling for votes. Still, as far as Netanyahu’s rivals are concerned, crickets.
The silent acceptance of Netanyahu’s radical statement demonstrates the main way in which Israelis from all walks of life received the MoU between Iran and the US and the resulting negotiations (with Lebanon) and continued genocide and ethnic cleansing (in Gaza and in the West Bank). If Israel has been passed over even by the Trump administration, it can expect absolutely nothing from the “world”. I doubt it is accidental that Netanyahu included the “world” alongside the Middle East in his description of the strength required to stay alive. He does not usually do so, preferring to include Israel within that “world” in to accentuate Israel’s lone battle against the savages that threaten “Judeo-Christian civilization”. This time he made it clear that not even the world was safe from Israel’s wrath. Why? Because the world had abandoned Israel. Not that there were any actual expectations to begin with. Europe has been taken over by “Islamists” and that parts that haven’t suffer from terminal woke madness and the ensuing antisemitism. Still, Israelis have always hoped to belong to this world, particularly once Israel has established “normalization” of its regional and global status. In a sentence, Netanyahu dispels that hope and encounters no resistance. Israel does not belong. In fact, there is probably no world to which one can belong or a system of rules one can follow if one wants to be a civilized person. Steven Miller, Trump’s ideologue and Homeland Security advisor, described these “iron laws of the world” in an interview to CNN (January 6 2026). Netanyahu is effectively embracing Miller’s view while clearly suggesting that he is willing to direct Israel’s actions even against the United States. In late June, Netanyahu gave a speech to a convention of local authority leaders in Israel in which he said that he did not ask permission from Trump to strike Iran, but informed him.
Israel is still quite capable of killing tens of thousands, attempting ethnic cleansing and extending its genocide, and obstructing any potential agreement for the sake of obstruction, although I sincerely doubt Israel is capable of simply attacking alone in Iran. Nonetheless, the main message sent by Netanyahu’s words and by his opponents’ tacit acceptance of those words is different. Israel’s resources will dwindle, it will discover itself friendless sooner rather than later and the demonstrations of Israeli wit that amuse Israelis alone (like recognizing the Armenian genocide in order to poke Erdogan while claiming it is doing so because such recognition is the right thing), these too will gradually fade. The most important message sent by Israel, its PM as well as the great majority of its Jewish citizenry, is that Israel is bowing out. It no longer sees itself obliged to any laws and rules except the eternal war Israel claims to pursue actively. This was not said outright. Israel continues to maintain a semblance of international activity, like stationing troops in Somaliland and building strong relationships based on the provision of cyber- and other weapons to some of the darkest dictators in the world. Still, the more Israel persists the less goodwill it finds and will find. This formal act of separation, the transformation of the “Miller Doctrine” into the “Netanyahu Doctrine”, comes as a direct result of the MoU between Iran and the US. This document represents the first time Israel was completely shunned from such a relevant process for its own security. Netanyahu, representing Israel, did not need to say much. His political opponents needed to say nothing at all. Jewish Israelis are united in their support of perennial war, which effectively means charting a completely individual regional and global path. Israel is not capable of sustaining this effort. The gap between sentiment and reality will grow. There is no telling what end, if any, awaits.
Ori Goldberg – I used to be a Middle Eastern Studies professor; for the past two years I’ve been analysing and criticizing Israel’s genocide in Gaza; I write mostly about politics but try to convey what it means to live in a genocidal society
