Regime Change

I recently listened to an insightful interview with Douglas Murray, the conservative British writer and journalist, who has become one of the most forceful public voices of Israel's right to self-defence following the October 7th attacks.

Murray’s stance remains unchanged, even as the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has worsened and the Netanyahu cabinet has decided that fully occupying Gaza might be necessary to achieve Israel’s strategic goals: eliminating Hamas, demilitarizing Gaza, and rescuing the remaining hostages—seemingly in that order. While Murray acknowledges that these goals may be impossible to fully realize, he insists that Israel is engaged in a broader civilizational battle against barbarism, fighting for Western values, and believes that the ends justify the means.

In the interview, Murray also referenced an argument from his most recent book, which I’ve heard others make as well. He asks: what army has ever been responsible for the welfare of its enemy’s population? He claims that Israel is expected to do more—unfairly, in his view—than any other country at war. Is Russia expected to feed Ukraine’s people, he asks?

Wait, did I just hear Murray equate Israel and Russia? Yes, I did. And that made me realize something crucial about the moral dilemma Israel faces. In fact, both Israel and Russia are invading forces, which is important to recognize. But their positions are morally very different. Russia launched a war of aggression to defeat an elected democracy, while Israel took military action from a defensive posture against a terrorist organization.

However, Murray’s comment highlights something significant: both Russia and Israel are, in effect, engaged in regime change. 

Maybe it’s time to take a step back and ask: how did we get here? Israel failed to defend its borders on October 7th. In a defensive war, the only legitimate military objectives should be securing borders, restoring deterrence, and retrieving the hostages. Israel has already achieved two of these objectives, and the focus now should be entirely on the third. But this doesn’t seem to be the direction Israel is taking.

Israel’s current predicament stems from a shift in its strategic goals. What started as a defensive war has morphed into a war of aggression, one that will not end until Hamas is fully eliminated. Many analysts doubt whether that’s even achievable. At the very least, we can agree that Hamas has been defeated as a significant short- and medium-term military threat to Israel. Yet, the Netanyahu cabinet doesn’t appear satisfied with this outcome.

Above all, we should not lose sight of the key goal: getting the hostages back. If that requires a full withdrawal of the IDF, then I support it. Would I be concerned that Hamas would declare ‘victory’ and raise their flag over Gaza’s rubble? No. Let them have it. My bigger concern is that Israel is setting itself up to bite off more than it can chew—taking on a costly, unwinnable task that could drag on for many years to come.