Gideon Levy: Unrestrained Israel a looming danger to itself and the region

Prominent Israeli writer Gideon Levy raised shocking questions about the nature and utility of Israeli independence under current circumstances. In an analytical article, Levy considered that the Hebrew state is still far from being able to exercise true independence, emphasizing that this inability serves its own interest and the interest of the region to avoid catastrophic scenarios.

Levy believes that 'independent Israel' necessarily means a state that acts without any legal, moral, or international brakes. He warned that the absence of these restrictions would turn Israel into a direct source of danger threatening its survival and the stability of its neighbors, given the prevalence of an unbridled power mentality among its current leadership.

The article revealed that recent military events in Gaza and Lebanon and confrontations with Iran proved that the Israeli decision is not fully sovereign. Levy explained that the cessation of major military operations was not a purely internal decision, but was imposed through external pressures and crucial phone calls from international powers.

The writer stressed that Israel's recognition of the limits of its power is what saved it from sliding into the abyss, considering American restrictions as a lifeline. Without these interventions, wars could have continued indefinitely with uncontainable destructive results.

In his foresight of the dangers of a lack of oversight, Levy painted a bleak picture of what would have happened in the Gaza Strip in terms of ethnic cleansing and mass displacement. He affirmed that plans to empty the Strip of its inhabitants and turn it into settlements would have actually been implemented were it not for the pressures that curbed the government and the army.

Levy's vision was not limited to Gaza but extended to include the Lebanese front, where he expected Israeli forces to reach the outskirts of the capital Beirut. He indicated that the desire for total destruction in southern Lebanon would have translated into a reality on the ground were it not for an international ceiling preventing the crossing of red lines.

Levy described the political and military mentality in Israel as ranging between 'paranoia' and 'megalomania'. He considered that this psychological mixture makes the state unqualified for complete independence, as it would use this independence to satisfy its instinct for expansion and greed for land.

The writer also strongly criticized what he described as 'arrogance and condescension' towards neighbors, traits he sees as rooted in contemporary Israeli discourse. He explained that getting rid of dependence on the United States at this time would inevitably lead to a catastrophe exceeding all crises the state has experienced since its establishment.

In a forced analogy, Levy compared Israel's situation to that of people who need special care and cannot live completely independently. He affirmed that the far-right is the sole beneficiary of calls for independence from international will, because that gives it the green light to implement its radical agendas.

Levy concluded his analysis by emphasizing that Israel's current situation, despite the bitterness of dependence for some, is the best for it and for the world. A state that cannot restrain itself from destruction and displacement always needs an external 'guardian' to prevent it from destroying itself and its regional surroundings.

Independent Israel is an unrestrained Israel, and it poses a real danger to itself and its surroundings simultaneously.