2 hours ago
15
Following the tragic events of October 7, 2023, Israel has realized it can no longer coexist with Hamas and Hezbollah. This has led the government and much of Israeli society to take a more assertive stance in dealing with these Islamist militant groups.
Recent polls show Netanyahu's party gaining support after prioritizing an aggressive stance against Hezbollah. This approach highlights Israel's broader strategy to counter the spread of Islamist radicalism, from its main backer in Tehran to its global affiliates. The death of the October 7 attack mastermind, Yahya Sinwar, reinforces the perception that Israel’s tough approach can succeed in meaningfully weakening large and dangerous militant organizations.
Unlike many Western nations, the Israeli government and society have taken the threat of Islamist militants and Iran’s Islamist government seriously. As a result, Israel has adopted more effective policies regarding Iranian opposition figures and critics of Islamism, particularly in recent years. A clear example of this approach is Israel's invitations to prominent Iranian figures from opposing political spectrums, such as filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf and Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi.
Overall, what are the Israeli government’s main strategies in confronting Islamist radicalism, particularly among Palestinians.
Constant monitoring
Islamism has capitalized on both the inefficiencies of autocratic systems in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as the ideological susceptibility of certain populations, using these factors to gain power. This movement does not fade or disappear with time. The rise of Shia Islamism in Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and ISIS in Iraq and Syria since the 1970s reflects this persistent trend. Any government targeted by these groups cannot afford to ignore these dynamics.
If Islamists are left unchecked—without constant monitoring, scrutiny, criticism, and decisive action—they will regroup to inflict further repression and violence. They do not seek a peaceful life or to be left alone. Their centers and gatherings must be consistently observed by the media, citizens, and responsible institutions to prevent future tragedies like September 11th and October 7th. No nation or group ignores its enemies. A segment of the Iranian opposition has adopted this strategy, actively monitoring Tehran’s worldwide, including members of the IRGC and government clerics.
Ceasefire, appeasement, and civil confrontation are not the solution
Israeli society and government have reached a clear understanding that Islamists have not entered the public sphere through civil disobedience, peaceful transitions of power, non-violent movements, or development programs. Instead, Islamism is a violent and aggressive ideology, intent on seizing power by force. It relies on militarization and intimidating tactics, such as public displays of prayer in the streets of European and North American cities, as a means of undermining the authority of Western states and civil institutions.
Islamists infringe on the rights and freedoms of others whenever given the opportunity. Just observe the behavior of pro-Hamas groups in Western countries toward Jews and opponents—they pursue intimidation in many instances. Israeli society has recognized the need to stand firm against them. The strong public support for Netanyahu’s government in its relentless attacks on Hezbollah reflects this understanding.
At times, Israeli society has strayed from this strategy due to internal political tensions and government instability, and the events of October 7 were the price paid for that neglect. The refusal to accept ceasefires requested by Western nations and the United Nations in the past year stems from the belief that any pause in hostilities is seen as a victory by Islamists, much like the outcome of the 33-day war in 2006, which Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic claim as their triumph.
Intimidation
Living under the constant threat of the Islamic Republic and its regional proxies, the Israeli government has concluded that it must reciprocate by depriving its enemies of any sense of peace or security. The feeling of constant threat must remain ingrained in the minds of Islamists, and Israel has largely succeeded in maintaining this pressure. Even in peaceful times, Islamists are preparing for attacks.
The continuation of terror attacks in Europe and North America is the result of treating terrorism as a law-and-order issue rather than a war. Israel’s forceful tactics, however, have instilled fear and concern among Iran's leaders, who are now pushing for a ceasefire through regional intermediaries.
A few steps ahead
Israel has consistently stayed one or more steps ahead of its Islamist enemies. With the exception of Hamas's October 7 operation, Israel has maintained a strategic, intelligence, operational, and tactical edge over its adversaries, as demonstrated by actions like the pager operation against Hezbollah and targeted strikes on Hamas and Hezbollah leaders. Israel’s military advantage is further bolstered by its alliance with the United States, which contributes to its weapons superiority.
Breaking their will
The drive for power among both Shiite and Sunni Islamists is strong and relentless, even in societies where they are a minority. To counter this, opponents must revise their strategies to break the Islamists' will. Islamist leaders, officials, and ideologues must be continuously criticized and monitored publicly, preventing them from gaining any respect. Additionally, they must constantly feel the threat of imminent danger. This was evident in the nervous speech of Nasrallah’s likely successor, Naeem Qassem, following Nasrallah’s death—an outcome of Israel's decapitation strategy against Islamist groups.
Israel's leaders have vowed "deadly and accurate" strikes following the Islamic Republic of Iran’s second wave of missile attacks. Failing to deliver on this promise could hinder efforts to break the will of Islamists. Meanwhile, Western governments' policies of appeasement have only emboldened Islamist groups, strengthening their totalitarian ambitions.
The opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily the views of Iran International
