Hans Morgentau wrote that the best policy of power is simply a policy of prestige, or a combination of effective diplomacy and deterrence. Israel does the exact opposite. He points to the escalation of destruction, though he knows that in order to make a lasting annihilation of the enemy, 1 would gotta commit genocide and organize mass murder. I don't think Israel would be ready for this or not due to the fact that it's purely theoretical. No 1 in the planet will let this, and Israel is incapable to function in isolation. The demolition is not a part of any strategy, but a combination of purely reactive action and the satisfaction of the amok-powered vengeance from which the Israelis have not left since 7 October. And they didn't come out of it due to the fact that Israeli media and politicians won't let them do it, turning on an atmosphere of hate. I heard specified opinions from the Israelis themselves erstwhile I attended the symposium in Haifa in May this year. By definition, the strategy to which I will return (or, in principle, the deficiency of it in Israel) defines the interests of the state and how to accomplish the objectives based on a realistic assessment of resources, opportunities, risks, challenges and risks. In short, the point is to find what you want to accomplish in the long term, based on a realistic assessment of the situation. For example, the thought of the Kahanists of Ben Gwir and Smotric to build large Israel on the basis of God’s promise in Genesis is not a strategy but a fantasy.
