In both Lebanon and Iran — wars that came neither as a response to an attack nor to prevent an imminent threat — Israel has appeared to fully adopt the doctrine of “permanent security.” As Israeli political sociologist Yagil Levy recently argued, this approach aims not only to eliminate immediate threats but future ones as well, through wholesale destruction of civilian life, and expelling or controlling populations. In short, there is no political solution, only a military solution; and what force cannot accomplish, more force will.

This “permanent security” posture was evident first and foremost in Israel’s war on Gaza after the October 7 attacks. When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began speaking of “total victory” just days later, the phrase was initially — and quite rightly — perceived by the Israeli public as an attempt to escape his responsibility for the failure. But it represented far more than a rhetorical exercise: the genocide, the ethnic cleansing, and the reduction of entire cities to dust and ashes were the manifestation of “total victory,” supported by the entire Israeli political and military establishment.

…

And here, in fact, is where this logic is revealed as an illusion. Even if one threat is addressed, another one is immediately produced, thereby exposing the paradox of the entire project: not achieving “permanent security” by ending conflict, but rather its continuous perpetuation through the ever-expanding horizon of threats.

“After Iran, Israel cannot live without an enemy,” Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan noted earlier this month. “Not only Netanyahu’s administration but also some figures in the opposition — though not all — are seeking to declare Turkey the new enemy.”

For the record, Israel would get its ass kicked by Turkey.