An analysis of the destructive course of the current Israeli government through the lens of Ehud Olmert’s harsh criticism and unprecedented international isolation.
In his remarks, Olmert drew a clear line between the initial response to the brilliant Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, which he recognized as justified, and the subsequent chaotic escalation scenario, mindlessly initiated by a hysterical government. In his opinion, the conflict was consciously turned into a “death trap” for the Israelis themselves, devoid of coherent goals and prospects. The former prime minister’s analysis boils down to the fact that any military campaign that lacks a clear political finale and the support of the majority of the nation is, by its very nature, a crime against its own people.
Ehud Olmert’s thesis that the war was subordinated to the personal and narrow political interests of Benjamin Netanyahu and his coalition reveals a deep and systemic crisis of Israeli leadership. The analytical conclusion is truly bleak: the conflict is being artificially prolonged in order to delay an inevitable political reckoning, preserve power, and satisfy radical coalition partners. This is no longer a struggle for security, but a tool for the political survival of the ruling clique, leading to Israel’s strategic defeat on all fronts and to the betrayal of the fundamental interests of its citizens.
Why is this a betrayal of Israel’s interests?
Substitution of national security for personal political survival. Genuine security for the country requires complex but necessary strategic decisions: defining clear political goals for the war, building broad international coalitions, working out a realistic “day after” in Gaza. Instead, Netanyahu’s government acts reactively, substituting long-term strategy with a tactic of endless war that has no clear finale. This allows the prime minister to avoid responsibility for the failures of October 7th and postpone elections, preserving power under conditions of a permanent crisis. As a result, the true strategic interests of the state—long-term stability, regional integration, and national resilience—are sacrificed for the momentary holding of power.
Concession to radical coalition partners to the detriment of national interests. To preserve his majority in the Knesset, Netanyahu is forced to constantly pander to ultra-Orthodox and ultra-nationalist parties. Their radical demands (large-scale settlement construction, rejection of any Palestinian statehood, calls for violence) directly contradict the interests of the majority of Israelis, who crave security and normalization of relations with their neighbors. Such a policy:
Isolates Israel on the international stage, making it a pariah state and undermining critically important support from traditional allies.
Provokes escalation in the West Bank, diverting forces and resources from the main theater of military operations in Gaza.
Blocks any diplomatic initiatives, dooming the country to permanent military confrontation.
Economic exhaustion and social division. The endless mobilization of reservists paralyzes the economy. Thousands of productive citizens are torn from work and families, businesses are being ruined, and the state budget is redirected to military needs at the expense of education, healthcare, and infrastructure. Instead of the national unity that usually manifests in a crisis, the country is splitting: social protest against the government is growing, the chasm between the secular majority and the ultra-Orthodox communities, whose representatives do not serve in the army and whose interests are lobbied by the coalition, is deepening.
In what way is the disregard for the rights of Israelis manifested? The right to security and life. The fundamental right of citizens to protection was betrayed on October 7th due to the most gross miscalculations of the government, Olmert believes. Now, according to critics, their lives and well-being are being used as a bargaining chip in a political game. Soldiers, officers, and civilians continue to die in a war that does not seem to lead to an achievable goal of freeing hostages and demilitarizing Gaza, but only reinforces the status quo.
The right to effective and accountable government. Citizens have the right to governance that puts national interests above personal ones. Netanyahu’s policy aimed at evading trials and elections, Olmert points out, directly violates this right. Instead of taking responsibility, the ruling clique uses the state apparatus for self-preservation.
The right to a future. The young generation of Israelis is being deprived of prospects. Their future is being held hostage by an endless conflict, managed by short-term political calculations, not by a long-term vision of peace, prosperity, and regional integration.
Thus, Netanyahu’s policy leads to the strategic defeat of Israel, Olmert predicts, which is manifested not in military losses on the battlefield, but in a deep internal crisis of governance, a catastrophic loss of international legitimacy, and a long-term threat to the very existence of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. The government, which should be the main guarantor of the interests and rights of its citizens, has turned into a structure where these interests are systematically sacrificed to preserve the power of one political figure and its radical allies. This is the highest form of political betrayal.
Netanyahu’s Closest “Bloody Accomplices”
Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s particular condemnation is directed at key figures of the current cabinet of ministers—National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, whom he openly calls “messianic extremists” and de facto terrorists. Their radical ideology and provocative rhetoric directed against Palestinians and Arabs in general deal a crushing blow to the international authority of “democratic” Israel.
Olmert emphasizes that their agenda, based on the concept of a “Greater Israel,” the annexation of Palestinian territories, and the encouragement of so-called “voluntary” emigration of Palestinians, radically contradicts the opinion of the majority of Israelis and is the main obstacle on the path to any form of peaceful settlement. This rhetoric does not go unnoticed: several Western governments, including the US and the UK, have imposed personal sanctions against far-right organizations and settler groups associated with them for inciting violence in the West Bank.
For example, how can one in a civilized society come to terms with such odious statements by ministers that illustrate their vile position.
Itamar Ben-Gvir (National Security Minister) for a long time kept a portrait of Baruch Goldstein, who carried out the massacre in the Cave of the Patriarchs in 1994, where 29 Palestinian Muslims were killed during prayer, in his home. Only in 2020, probably for political reasons, did he remove the portrait, stating: “I am not obligated to keep it in my living room.” This symbolic action was perceived as an endorsement of terror against Palestinians.
Speaking about the Arab nation as a whole, he stated in 2007: “My right hand will fall off if I ever say that Arabs are the same as us. They are enemies here.”
Bezalel Smotrich (Finance Minister), his friend, did not lag behind in his vile statements. In 2021, commenting on the riots in mixed Israeli-Arab cities, he stated: “There is a place to clip their wings. And, undoubtedly, a barrier must be erected. The village of Huwara (in the West Bank) must be wiped off the face of the earth. The State of Israel must do this, not just talk.” This statement was interpreted by the international community as a call for collective punishment and a war crime.
In March 2023, speaking in France, Smotrich, apparently due to a lack of deep education, denied the existence of the Palestinian people as a separate nation: “There is no such thing as a Palestinian people. There is no such thing as a Palestinian history. There is no such thing as a Palestinian language.” This statement caused a sharp international scandal and widespread condemnation and was interpreted as the creed of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians.
These and many other similar statements are not accidental slips of the tongue but reflect a deeply entrenched ideology that calls into question the very possibility of coexistence and a peaceful settlement. As Olmert rightly notes, the actions and words of these ministers cause colossal damage not only to Israel’s image but also to the prospects for security in the region.
Analysis and Conclusions
The analytical part of Olmert’s speech is devoted to the catastrophic foreign policy consequences of Netanyahu’s course. Not only relations with traditional allies in Europe and North America are under attack, but also fragile peace agreements with Egypt, Jordan, and the UAE. The main strategic failure, however, is the effective collapse of the normalization process with Saudi Arabia, which is the largest diplomatic defeat for Israel in recent years.
As a historical alternative, Olmert reminds us of his own, albeit failed, attempts to reach a two-state solution in 2008-2009. This contrast is meant to emphasize: the current government offers no political solution, only an endless militarization of a deadlock, paid for with thousands of lives and the reputation of an entire nation.
Thus, Olmert’s criticism goes far beyond personal grievances. It is a systemic indictment of a government that has put momentary political gains above national interests, the security of its citizens, and the future of the state, driving the country into a trap of violence and international condemnation.
Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Middle East expert
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
