featured
Can Netanyahu Invade Gaza? // Judge Napolitano
Judge Napolitano | Trusted Newsmaker
Netanyahu’s Gaza Ambition and the Shifting Geopolitical ChessboardIn a recent discussion, Professor Jeffrey Sachs dissected the mounting tensions in the Middle East, linking them to broader geopolitical shifts involving the United States, Russia, and Israel. While the headlines often focus on the immediate violence, Sachs argues that the underlying strategies reveal far more enduring ambitions — especially in the case of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s designs on Gaza.
From Ukraine to Gaza: A Broader Power Play
Sachs began by framing the current political climate through the lens of the upcoming Trump–Putin meeting in Alaska. According to Sachs, this encounter could, in theory, produce a breakthrough on Ukraine — but only if Trump abandoned neoconservative pressure and embraced neutrality for Kyiv. Such a concession would mean halting NATO expansion and agreeing on a territorial settlement with Russia.
The more likely outcome, he warned, is a symbolic declaration of success with little substance, leaving the Ukraine conflict grinding on. This dynamic, he noted, has echoes in the Gaza situation: the appearance of diplomacy masking entrenched, long-term strategic goals.
Netanyahu’s Real Objective
Turning to Gaza, Sachs emphasized that Netanyahu’s announced “day after” plans are not about peace or security. Instead, they align with the Likud Party’s founding platform: complete Israeli control over all territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The envisioned Gaza would be a tightly controlled enclave — an open-air prison policed by Israeli forces under the guise of counterterrorism.
Sachs called this a “genocidal” policy, arguing it has nothing to do with defending Israel’s borders and everything to do with permanent annexation. Far from being an isolated campaign against Hamas, it is part of a decades-long expansionist project.
The Humanitarian Cost
At the center of his critique was the deliberate restriction of food, medicine, and essential supplies into Gaza. Sachs described this as the weaponization of starvation — a policy that violates international law and corrodes Israel’s moral standing. The suffering of civilians is not a byproduct but an intended lever of control.
He accused both Israel and the United States of complicity in this siege, with Washington shielding Netanyahu from meaningful diplomatic consequences. In Sachs’ view, this joint strategy not only perpetuates human suffering but also isolates both nations from the global community, leaving them increasingly reliant on a shrinking circle of allies.
The U.S. Role: Enabler or Check?
Sachs stressed that the U.S. is not a bystander but an active participant. Billions in military aid and political cover at the United Nations make Netanyahu’s strategy feasible. While some in Washington frame this as supporting an ally’s security, Sachs argued it is, in reality, underwriting policies that damage American credibility abroad.
The Biden administration’s reluctance to confront Netanyahu head-on mirrors patterns from previous presidencies. From a geopolitical standpoint, Sachs noted, this “unconditional backing” signals to other powers that U.S. foreign policy can be bent by domestic political lobbies — a perception that both Moscow and Beijing are quick to exploit.
Global Consequences
Beyond the immediate tragedy in Gaza, Sachs warned of the broader diplomatic fallout. European nations, already uneasy with Israel’s conduct, may move toward sanctions or arms embargoes. The erosion of support in the Global South — where sympathy for the Palestinian cause runs deep — could undermine U.S. influence in key international forums.
Moreover, the intertwining of the Gaza conflict with the Ukraine war creates a complex web of negotiations and trade-offs. Sachs suggested that major powers could use one crisis as leverage in another, making any resolution even more elusive.
The Moral Imperative
For Sachs, the question is not only geopolitical but moral. He pointed out that many Jewish voices, both inside and outside Israel, oppose Netanyahu’s Gaza strategy, seeing it as incompatible with Jewish ethical traditions. By pursuing territorial control through collective punishment, Israel risks alienating its own diaspora supporters and deepening internal divisions.
This moral argument, Sachs believes, is essential for shifting public opinion — particularly in the United States, where political leaders have been hesitant to challenge Netanyahu directly.
Conclusion: The Crossroads Ahead
Sachs’ analysis paints a stark picture: Gaza’s future is not merely about Hamas or even Israel–Palestine relations. It is a litmus test for how global powers balance strategic interests with humanitarian principles. If Netanyahu’s vision prevails unopposed, it could set a precedent for other territorial conflicts, normalizing the use of siege and annexation as acceptable statecraft.
Whether the U.S. continues as an enabler or becomes a genuine check on such ambitions will shape not only the fate of Gaza but also America’s role in a rapidly changing world order.
//
Continue Reading