
Will Israel ever get blowback for bombing its neighbours?
The most recent attacks on Syria were launched this week, going so far as to hit the country's Ministry of Defence.
Of course, the Israelis point to their justifications for the attacks on Syria – principally, in Israel's telling, to defend the Syrian Druze minority. A US-brokered ceasefire has taken effect, but whether it holds remains to be seen.
In Lebanon, Israel claimed it wanted to stop the threat posed by Hezbollah.
The attacks on Iran, it said, were to end that country's attempt to build a nuclear bomb.
And in Yemen, Israel's bombing was a response to attacks from the country's Houthi rebels.
Explanations aside, the question becomes whether the Israelis can continue to act in a manner that has many around the world, and particularly in the Middle East, seeing them as the aggressor.
Impunity over relationship-building
The Israeli argument is that all these conflicts – and the more than 58,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza – are necessary because Israel faces an existential battle that it has no choice but to win.
The Israeli government, in its current far-right makeup, at least, does not seem to care if its neighbours do not like it. Rather, it seems to care that they fear it.
And as the most powerful military force in the region, with the backing of the most powerful military force in the world, the Israelis feel that they can largely do what they want.
Israel is taking advantage of a weakening international order and a moment of flux in the way the world is run, particularly with the United States under President Donald Trump openly moving towards a more transactional foreign policy.
Western countries had previously attempted to maintain the idea of a liberal international order, where institutions such as the United Nations ensure that international law is followed.
But Israel's actions, over decades, have made it increasingly hard to maintain the pretence.
The world has been unable to stop Israel from continuing its occupation of Palestinian land, even though it is illegal under international law.
Settlements continue to be built and expanded in the West Bank, and settlers continue to kill unarmed Palestinians.
Human rights organisations and international bodies have found that Israel has repeatedly violated the rules of war in its conduct in Gaza, and have accused the country of committing genocide, but can do little more.
Taking advantage
No other power wants, or feels strong enough, to take on the mantle the US is arguably vacating.
And until the rules get rewritten, it increasingly feels like might equals right. Israel, the only nuclear power in the region, is taking advantage.
Supporters of Israel's actions in the past two years would also argue that those predicting negative consequences for its attacks have been proven wrong.
The main perceived threat to Israel was the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance, and the argument was that these countries and groups would strike Israel severely if the latter went too far in its attacks.
Israel did escalate, and the reaction from Iran and its allies was, in many cases, to choose to stand down rather than risk the total devastation of their countries or organisations.
Iran did attack Israel in a way that the country had not experienced before, with Tel Aviv being directly hit on numerous occasions.
But some of the worst-case scenario predictions did not take place, and ultimately, the direct conflict between Israel and Iran lasted 12 days, without the outbreak of a wider regional war.
In Lebanon, Israel can be even happier with the result.
After an intensified bombing campaign and invasion last year, Hezbollah lost its iconic leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and much of its military capacity, as well as some of its power in Lebanon. It is now, at least in the short term, no longer much of a threat to Israel.
Israeli hubris?
Israel seems to believe weak neighbours are good for it.
Much as in the case of Gaza and the occupied West Bank, the perception is that there is no real need to provide an endgame or next-day scenario.
Instead, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has demonstrated, Israel can maintain chaos as far away as possible from its borders, as long as it maintains security inside.
But the current situation in Syria is an interesting example of what can go wrong, and when Israeli hubris may go too far.
Netanyahu has maintained that Syria south of Damascus must remain demilitarised.
His first argument was that this would ensure the safety of the Druze minority, thousands of whom also live in Israel and demanded that Israel protect their brethren following violence involving Bedouin fighters and government forces.
The second argument was that the new authorities in Syria cannot be trusted because of the new leadership's past ties to groups such as al-Qaeda.
After Israel's bombing and some US prodding, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa agreed to withdraw government security forces from the Druze-majority province of Suwayda on Thursday, warning that while Israel 'may be capable of starting a war', it would 'not be easy to control its consequences'.
By Friday, it had become clear that thousands of Bedouin – and other tribal forces – were headed to support the Bedouins in Suwayda after reports of massacres against them.
Al-Sharaa, presumably with the acquiescence of Israel, announced that Syrian government forces would deploy in Suwayda to end the ongoing clashes there, and a new ceasefire was declared on Saturday.
As it happens, the presence of a strong state with control over its territory may be more effective than allowing anarchy to reign.
Blowback
If anything, Israel's actions in Syria will increase its regional isolation and raise eyebrows among countries that could have been seen as potential allies.
Saudi Arabia has emphasised its support for the new Syrian government, and Israel's behaviour will add to Riyadh's feeling, post-Gaza, that any 'Abraham Accords' normalising ties cannot happen in the short term.
For many countries in the Middle East, particularly in the Gulf, Israeli hegemony, especially with the rise of messianic far-right forces in its government, leads to war, expansionism, chaos, and security risks.
And Israel's short-term military gains run the risk of blowback elsewhere.
Iran's military capabilities may have been heavily damaged in its war with Israel, but Tehran will likely seek to shift tactics to undermine Israel in other ways in the years to come, while improving its defences and potentially focusing on achieving a nuclear weapon.
As mentioned, the opinions of regional countries may not be the highest priority to the current crop of Israeli leaders, as long as they continue to have US support.
But that does not mean that – in the long term – Israel will not increasingly face blowback for its actions, both diplomatically and in terms of its security.
Domestically, constant wars, even if beyond Israel's borders, do not provide a sense of long-term security for any populace.
The percentage of military reservists answering call-ups has already reportedly been decreasing. In a country where the majority of the military personnel are reservists who have jobs, businesses and families to take care of, it is difficult to maintain a permanent military footing indefinitely.
That has contributed to an increasing divide in Israel between a dominant ultranationalist camp that wants to fight first and ask questions later, annex Palestinian land, and force regional acceptance through brute force, and a more centrist camp that – while perhaps not prioritising alleviating Palestinian suffering – is more sensitive to international isolation and sanctions, while attempting to hold on to a 'liberal Zionist' image of Israel.
Should current trends continue, and the ultranationalist camp retain its dominance, Israel can continue to use its military power and US backing to yield short-term successes.
But by sowing chaos around its borders and flouting international norms, it is breeding resentment among its neighbours and losing support among its traditional allies – even in the US, where public support is slipping.
A more isolated Israel can do what it wants today, but without a long-term strategy for peace, stability and mutual respect with its neighbours – including the Palestinians – it may not be able to escape the consequences tomorrow.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Al Jazeera
32 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
‘Starvation is a war crime', UN expert blasts Israel
'Starvation is a war crime', UN expert blasts Israel NewsFeed The famine we're seeing in Gaza now is the most horrific stage of Israel's starvation campaign, a UN expert on food has told Al Jazeera. He's calling on countries to stop Israel starving Palestinians to death. Video Duration 01 minutes 58 seconds 01:58 Video Duration 01 minutes 24 seconds 01:24 Video Duration 00 minutes 38 seconds 00:38 Video Duration 00 minutes 44 seconds 00:44 Video Duration 00 minutes 37 seconds 00:37 Video Duration 01 minutes 46 seconds 01:46 Video Duration 01 minutes 24 seconds 01:24


Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
These 28 countries called for Israel to end its war on Gaza: What they said
On Monday, 28 countries, including the United Kingdom, Japan, and numerous European nations, issued a joint statement calling on Israel that the war on Gaza 'must end now', marking the latest example of intensifying criticism from Israel's allies. The joint statement, signed by the foreign ministers of these countries, condemned 'the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food'. The statement comes as global pressure mounts on Israel over civilian casualties at aid sites, obstruction of humanitarian aid, and violations of international humanitarian law – as the occupied Palestinian territory simmers with starvation. Israel's war on Gaza has killed more than 59,000 people and wounded 140,000 since the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas, in which 1,139 people were killed and more than 200 were taken captive. So, what does the joint statement say? Who are these countries? And how have Israel and its closest ally, the United States, reacted? What did the statement say? The joint statement said the countries are coming together 'with a simple, urgent message: The war in Gaza must end now.' The statement underlined that the suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached 'new depths' and that the Israeli government's aid delivery model is 'dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity'. They called on the Israeli government to 'comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law' and immediately lift restrictions on the flow of aid. The group of countries also noted that the captives 'cruelly held' by Hamas continue to 'suffer terribly' and called for their immediate and unconditional release. They said in the statement that a negotiated ceasefire offers 'the best hope of bringing [the captives] home and ending the agony of their families'. Demographic change, settler violence: What else did the countries say? The countries criticised Israel's plan to establish a concentration zone – Israel's vision of relocating the entire Palestinian population into a fenced, heavily controlled zone built on the ruins of Rafah – as 'completely unacceptable'. 'Permanent forced displacement is a violation of international humanitarian law,' the joint statement said. The group of countries also marked its opposition to 'any steps towards territorial or demographic change in the Occupied Palestinian Territories' and noted that the E1 settlement plan announced would divide a Palestinian state in two, 'marking a flagrant breach of international law and critically [undermining] the two-state solution'. They also called out that the 'settlement building across the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, has accelerated while settler violence against Palestinians has soared. This must stop.' Which countries signed the joint statement? The joint statement was signed by the foreign ministers of a total of 28 countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. These governments, many of them allies of Israel, issued some of their strongest language yet, condemning the obstruction of aid in the occupied Palestinian territory. Which of those countries recognise Palestine? Out of these 28 countries from the joint statement, nine recognise the State of Palestine as a sovereign state. Cyprus, Malta, and Poland recognised Palestine shortly after the Palestinian Declaration of Independence in 1988. Iceland followed in 2011, and Sweden in 2014. Ireland, Norway, Slovenia, and Spain recognised Palestine in 2024. How did Israel respond? Oren Marmorstein, a spokesperson for the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, wrote on X that Israel rejects the joint statement published by the group of countries, 'as it is disconnected from reality and sends the wrong message to Hamas'. Israel further claimed that instead of agreeing to a ceasefire, 'Hamas is busy running a campaign to spread lies about Israel' and deliberately acting to increase friction and harm to civilians who come to receive humanitarian aid. The statement further said there is a 'concrete proposal for a ceasefire deal' and Hamas 'stubbornly refuses to accept it'. What does Hamas say about the ceasefire? The spokesperson of the military wing of Hamas said Israel was the one that rejected a ceasefire agreement to release all captives held in Gaza. Qassam Brigades spokesperson Abu Obeida said in a prerecorded video, released on Friday, that the group had in recent months offered a 'comprehensive deal' that would release all captives at once – but it was rejected by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right ministers. 'It has become clear to us that the government of the criminal Netanyahu has no real interest in the captives because they are soldiers,' he said, adding that Hamas favours a deal that guarantees an end to the war, a withdrawal of Israeli forces, and entry of humanitarian aid for besieged Palestinians. Hamas is still holding 50 people in Gaza, about 20 of whom are believed to be alive. What is Israel blocking from entering Gaza, claiming that Hamas can use it? Israel continues to block the entry of essential humanitarian supplies into Gaza, claiming that Hamas could divert or repurpose them for military use. Among the items withheld are: Baby formula, food, water filters, and medicines. Medicine and medical supplies face blocks as part of Israel's 'dual-use' restrictions, where items like painkillers and dialysis equipment are held back, ostensibly for possible Hamas exploitation in military contexts. Other medical equipment, such as oxygen cylinders, anaesthetics, and cancer medications, has been restricted. Israeli authorities argue that some items, like certain chemicals or electronics, could have dual-use potential. Aid groups report that the blanket denial of crucial medical items is pushing Gaza's health system towards total collapse, and say that these restrictions are collective punishment and violations of international humanitarian law.


Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Inside Iran's crackdown on Afghan migrants after the war with Israel
Tehran, Iran – The wave of Afghan refugees and migrants being sent back from Iran has not stopped, with more than 410,000 being pushed out since the end of the 12-day war with Israel on June 24. More than 1.5 million Afghan refugees and migrants have been sent back in 2025, according to the United Nations' International Organization for Migration (IOM), while the Red Cross says more than one million people more could be sent back by the end of the year. Iran has been hosting Afghans for decades. While it has periodically expelled irregular arrivals, it has now taken its efforts to unprecedented levels after the war with Israel that killed more than 1,000 people in Iran, many of them civilians. Iran has also been building a wall along its massive eastern borders with Afghanistan and Pakistan to stem the flow of irregular migration, and smuggled drugs and fuel. The parliament is also planning for a national migration organisation that would take over its efforts to crack down on irregular migration. 'I'm afraid' 'I feel like we're being singled out because we're easy targets and don't have many options,' said Ahmad*, a 27-year-old undocumented Afghan migrant who came to Iran four years ago. Like others, he had to work construction and manual labour jobs before managing to get hired as the custodian of an old residential building in the western part of the capital, Tehran. At the current rate of Iran's heavily devalued currency, he gets paid the equivalent of about $80 a month, which is wired to the bank card of an Iranian citizen because he cannot have an account in his name. He has a small spot where he can sleep in the building and tries to send money to his family in Afghanistan whenever possible. 'I don't really leave the building that much because I'm afraid I'll be sent back. I don't know how much longer I can live like this,' he told Al Jazeera. Vahid Golikani, who heads the foreign nationals' department of the governor's office in Tehran, told state media last week that undocumented migrants must not be employed to protect local labour. Daily returns, which include expulsions and voluntary returns, climbed steeply after the start of the war, with average daily returns exceeding 29,600 in the week starting July 10, said Mai Sato, UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran. She was among four special rapporteurs who decried the mass returns on Thursday, adding their voice to rights organisations such as Amnesty International. 'Afghanistan remains unsafe under Taliban rule. These mass returns violate international law and put vulnerable people, especially women, children, and minorities, at severe risk of persecution and violence,' Sato said. Alleged security risks Authorities and state media have said undocumented immigrants may pose a security risk, alleging that some of them were paid by Israel to carry out tasks inside Iran. While state television has aired confessions from a handful of unidentified imprisoned Afghans, but their numbers do not seem to match the scale of the expulsions. The televised confessions featured men with covered eyes and blurred-out faces saying they had sent photographs and information online to anonymous handlers linked with Mossad. Hundreds of Iranians have also been arrested on suspicion of working for Israel, and several Iranians have been executed over the past weeks as the government works to increase legal punishments for spying. Mohammad Mannan Raeesi, a member of parliament from the ultraconservative city of Qom, said during a state television interview last week, 'We don't have a single migrant from Afghanistan among the Israeli spies.' He pointed out that some Afghans have fought and died for Iran, and that attempts to expel irregular arrivals should avoid xenophobia. Economic pressures Before the latest wave of forced returns, Iranian authorities reported the official number of Afghan refugees and migrants at a whopping 6.1 million, with many speculating the real number was much higher. Only about 780,000 have been given official refugee status by the government. Supporting millions of refugees and migrants, regular and irregular, takes a toll on a government that spends billions annually on hidden subsidies on essentials like fuel, electricity and bread for everyone in the country. Since 2021, there have been complaints among some Iranians about the economic impact of hosting millions who poured into Iran unchecked in the aftermath of the Taliban's chaotic takeover of Afghanistan. Amid increasing hostility towards the Afghan arrivals over the past years, local newspapers and social media have increasingly highlighted reports of crimes like theft and rape allegedly committed by Afghan migrants. However, no official statistics on such crimes have been released. That has not stopped some Iranians, along with a large number of anonymous accounts online, from cheering on the mass returns, with popular hashtags in Farsi on X and other social media portraying the returns as a 'national demand'. Again, there are no reliable statistics or surveys that show what portion of the Iranian population backs the move, or under what conditions. Some tearful migrants told Afghan media after being returned from Iran that security forces beat or humiliated them while putting them on buses to the border. Others said they were abruptly deported with only the clothes on their back, and were unable to get their last paycheques, savings, or downpayments made for their rented homes. Some of those with legal documentation have not been spared, as reports emerged in recent weeks of Afghan refugees and migrants being deported after having their documents shredded by police. Government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani and Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni have separately said the government is only seeking undocumented migrants. 'In cases where legal residents have been deported, those instances have been investigated,' Momeni said last week, adding that over 70 percent of those returned came forward voluntarily after the government set a deadline to leave for early July. 'I sense a lot of anger among the people' For those Afghans who remain in Iran, a host of other restrictions make life difficult. They are barred from entering dozens of Iranian cities. Their work permits may not be renewed every year, or the renewal fees could be hiked suddenly. They are unable to buy property, cars or even SIM cards for their mobile phones. They are seldom given citizenship and face difficulties in getting their children into Iranian schools. Zahra Aazim, a 22-year-old teacher and video editor of Afghan origin based in Tehran, said she did not truly feel the extent of the restrictions associated with living in Iran for Afghans until a few years ago. Her family migrated to Iran about 45 years ago, shortly after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution that brought the incumbent theocratic establishment to power. 'What really bugs me is the fact that I was born in Iran, and my family has been living here for over four decades, but I'm still unable to get something as basic as a driver's licence. 'That's not to mention fundamental documents like a national ID card or an Iran-issued birth certificate,' she told Al Jazeera. By law, those documents are reserved for Iranian nationals. Afghan-origin people can apply if their mother is Iranian or if they are a woman married to an Iranian man. Aazim said Iran's rules have only gotten stricter over the years. But things took a sharp turn after the war, and she has received hundreds of threatening or insulting messages online since. 'I've been hearing from other Afghan-origin friends in Iran … that this is no longer a place where we can live,' she said. 'A friend called me with the same message after the war. I thought she meant she's thinking about moving to another country or going back to Afghanistan. I never thought her last resort would be [taking her own life].' Aazim also said her 23-year-old brother was taken by police from a Tehran cafe – and later released – on suspicion of espionage. The incident, along with videos of violence against Afghans that are circulating on social media, has made her feel unsafe. 'I sense a lot of anger among the Iranian people, even in some of my Iranian friends. When you can't lash out against those in power above, you start to look for people at lower levels to blame,' she said. 'I'm not saying don't take any action if you have security concerns about Afghan migrants … I just wish they would treat us respectfully. 'Respect has nothing to do with nationality, ethnicity or geography.' *Name has been changed for the individual's protection.