‘The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice,” famously wrote Martin Luther King Jnr in 1968. The fact that he was assassinated five days after adds extra gravitas to the quote. But does the universe work in this way indeed? Or is this just a naïve and possibly unrealistic, if inherently human, blind hope for some divine or universal retribution for what we perceive to be immoral or unjust actions?
Ismail Lagardien, on fighting form as ever in Business Day, is sceptical. Comparing the current Israeli attacks on Lebanon, using raw force from the air and ground as well as booby-trapped electrical devices, to that of the South African apartheid state’s incursions into Lesotho, he states: “Israel will prevail despite suggestions of imminent collapse.
“It will not be pleasant, and is likely to expand horizontally and intensify vertically; there will be more deaths over greater swathes of territory, and with increased brutality… The Israelis chose the Dresden option,” he writes, in a reference to the almost complete destruction of the German city by the Allies through carpet bombing during World War 2.
Lagardien, at least in absolute terms, may be correct. It is hard, if not impossible, to imagine that with the support of the US and its own nuclear armaments Israel would ever “lose” a war against its antagonist, the “axis of resistance”. But I am certain that Lagardien is aware of the story of poor Pyrrhus of Epirus. His triumph against the Romans in the Battle of Asculum in 279 BC destroyed much of his forces and forced the end of his campaign. It also coined the phrase for a victory which inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat.
Any win for Netanyahu will be a Pyrrhic victory
The rating agency Moody’s might have had more sympathy with such a concept when it prepared its credit rating statement on Israel last week. The agency did not only downgrade Israel’s sovereign rating for the second time this year. It used the “nuclear” option of a double downgrade, rerating the sovereign from A2 to Baa1, with a negative outlook. This is only two notches above junk status, and the same as Kazakhstan and Bulgaria.
“Geopolitical risk has intensified significantly further, to very high levels, with material negative consequences for Israel’s creditworthiness in both the near and longer term,” Moody’s said in its unscheduled announcement.
The conflicts in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon have proved financially extremely costly for Israel. Government spending and the budget deficit are soaring, while sectors such as tourism, agriculture and construction have slumped.
Read more: Israel-Palestine War
Israeli officials estimated war costs through the end of next year would amount to roughly $66-billion, or more than 12% of gross domestic product. That figure was based on the fighting with Hezbollah not escalating into a full-blown confrontation, which now looks almost unavoidable.
Last month, the Israeli Ministry of Finance downgraded Israel’s GDP forecasts for the year to 1.1%, from 1.9%. The new projection – attributed to “weaker-than-expected” data in the second quarter – means Israel’s economy is set to grow at the slowest pace this year since about 2009, except for the height of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.
The war is also taking its toll on the Israeli consumer, as inflation due to the higher costs of imports accelerated to 3.6% in August from 3.2%, substantially above target. Anecdotally, this columnist can attest to soaring flower delivery prices in Tel Aviv.
Within Israel, such worries are becoming real, if not acute. In the left-wing daily Haaretz, Yossi Verter writes: “Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has made the Israeli economy and reputation resemble a Gaza neighbourhood. While an economic criminal sits at the Finance Ministry, a constitutional criminal at the Justice Ministry, and a national criminal in the Defense Ministry, above them sits a PM whose actions are tainted by extraneous political and personal considerations. Even the most successful assassination will not save [Netanyahu] from the bitter fate which is rushing up at full speed. Netanyahu’s government is ruining Israel.”
Israel faces quagmires on three fronts
That the recent killing of Hassan Nasrallah is a seismic moment for the Middle East is unquestionable, even if the eventual effects are uncertain. Yet, it is likely that in a vain attempt to “change the Middle East forever” – a line used in the 1982 and 2006 incursions into Lebanon – Israel will become bogged down on not one but three fronts: in Gaza, the West Bank and southern Lebanon. If the costs of merely one “Dresden” in Gaza have already been deeply scarring on the economy and its reputation, another two could be permanently damaging.
Israel is not like Russia, which has almost limitless amounts of hydrocarbons to sell the world and fund its war machine. For its economy, Israel relied almost solely on its teetering technology sector and now all but eviscerated tourism. For its war machine it is simply entirely dependent on the continued largesse of the US.
When Benjamin Netanyahu shook a public fist at the world and humiliated the US from the UN podium last week, he stated his intent. By immediately afterwards ordering the killing of Nasrallah he raised the stakes even further.
Now it is clear that Israel wants nothing less than to destroy the “axis of resistance” once and for all, and – possibly – broker agreements with Saudi Arabia and the UAE (which would entail the creation of a Palestinian state). Many supporters of Israel are excitedly comparing this moment to the Six Day War in 1967.
While there are indeed potential opportunities for Israel in the current geopolitical landscape, the longer-term outlook for the region is dire. Hezbollah, though battered, still possesses the ability to launch missile strikes on Israel’s major cities. The devastation in Lebanon and Gaza caused by Israeli attempts to “mow the grass” is likely to foster a new generation of militants. About 60% of Hamas fighters are said to be orphans from previous conflicts.
In David Grossman’s To the End of the Land, the portrayal of the fear and uncertainty that accompanies previous wars resonates with the political and economic precariousness Israel now faces. Netanyahu may harbour dreams of reshaping the Middle East, but his bellicosity and self-interest can only be described as hubris.
One does not have to be a scholar of Greek literature to know that after hubris comes the Goddess of retribution: nemesis. DM