In Sign of Israeli Welcome to the "U.S. War Ministry"

Author: أنطوان شلحت

This is the first Israeli reaction to U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to change the name of the Pentagon from the Department of Defense to the Department of War, a name that was used until 1947, and to push forward a special bill to solidify this change. Security voices close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarded this move as carrying an important strategic political message regarding the nature of American power and the mechanism by which the Pentagon should be managed, specifically emphasizing operational readiness for war and combat on one hand, and enhancing deterrence against enemies and building strength as core activities of this ministry. According to these voices, it seems that the most important thing is that Trump, by changing the name of the ministry, is seeking to use a language that abstracts and retains all the implications that the name itself may suggest. Essentially, the message to be conveyed is that the Pentagon's goal is not only defense but also achieving victory and resolution, akin to the ultimate goal of the current war that Israel is waging and continues to engage in.

These voices refrained from mentioning that Trump's decision perhaps reflects the admiration he holds for Israel against the backdrop of the genocide in Gaza; however, at the same time, they hinted that this war constitutes an original contribution to reaching this decision, which still requires congressional approval.

The use of the terms victory and resolution is not coincidental. It is easy for those who follow the recent statements from these voices to deduce that victory and resolution remain the justification through which Netanyahu legitimizes the continuation of the war, despite the fact that it has long exhausted itself. According to prevailing new assessments, Netanyahu and his government prefer to continue the war until what is described as "absolute victory" is achieved, which has recently been replaced by the phrase "eliminating Hamas." Following this replacement, one of the senior Israeli military analysts questioned: Did the 700 days of war teach us that rockets, planes, drones, advanced electronics, and tanks, even submarines, are not guarantees of victory?

In discussing Netanyahu's statements regarding the goal of "eliminating Hamas," it can be pointed out that the primary justification is that the outcome of the war on Gaza will influence the future that will prevail over the West Bank territories, and that the ongoing existence of this movement will cast doubt on the efficacy of any achievement that Israel claims in facing it.

Moreover, it can be noted that the "mechanism" for eliminating "Hamas" has now publicly included targeting the political leadership of the movement, including those located abroad. As noted by the former head of the Israeli National Security Council, Meir Ben-Shabbat, one of Netanyahu's closest allies, the statement by the Israeli army commander General Eyal Zamir that "the elimination of Hamas leadership has been largely accomplished. Most living leaders are abroad, and we will reach them too" was not a coincidence, but rather in light of the fact that after the "severe blow to Hamas's heads in Gaza," the leadership of the movement abroad has become the most important center of power shouldering the movement's responsibilities. The activities of the foreign headquarters multiply its strength and play a crucial role in converting it into a party with regional influence, especially given the constraints imposed on its actions from Gaza or the West Bank.

While Gaza leaders operate secretly and find it challenging to perform their tasks, with their voices rarely heard, a group of political leadership members plays its role in presenting the movement's policy, and they reside abroad. The entity capable of rebuilding the movement when the opportunity arises exists within this headquarters. In view of the central role played by this leadership, "Israel cannot leave them alone!"