The Blogs: Four Years of What? – Part II | Lonny Baskin

Four Years of What? – Part II: Diplomacy, Isolation, and the Refusal to Take Responsibility

In Part I, we examined the domestic consequences of nearly four years under Netanyahu’s latest government: the October 7 disaster, the hostage crisis, the human and economic costs of war, rising social divisions, and what many Israelis view as a profound failure of leadership.
But governments are judged by more than what happens within their borders.
They are also judged by how they manage alliances, maintain international legitimacy, confront strategic threats, protect citizens abroad, and accept responsibility when things go wrong.
It is here, many critics argue, that the government’s record becomes even more troubling.

International Standing and Credit Downgrades

For decades, Israel built a reputation as a resilient democracy with a strong economy and responsible fiscal management.
That reputation has suffered significant damage.
Israel experienced multiple credit-rating downgrades for the first time in its history.
International financial institutions cited war-related risks, political instability, and fiscal concerns.
Rather than addressing these concerns directly, government officials often dismissed them as bias or misunderstanding.
The result is higher borrowing costs and increased economic uncertainty that will affect Israelis for years to come.

The Rise of Anti-Israel Sentiment and Antisemitism Worldwide

One of the most troubling developments since October 7 has been the surge in anti-Israel sentiment and antisemitic incidents across the world.

Since October 7, Jewish communities across North America, Europe, Latin America, Australia, and elsewhere have reported significant increases in threats, harassment, vandalism, violence, and intimidation. Jewish schools, synagogues, community centers, and businesses have been forced to increase security measures, while many Jews report feeling less safe expressing their identity in public.

University campuses that were once seen as places of open dialogue have become, for many Jewish students, environments marked by hostility, exclusion, and fear.

While antisemitism is a longstanding global problem with many causes, critics argue that Israel’s political leadership failed to recognize the scale of the challenge that emerged after October 7 and failed to respond with the urgency and sophistication required

Losing the Information War

Modern conflicts are fought not only on battlefields but in the arena of public opinion.
Many critics believe that while Israel devoted enormous resources to military operations, it devoted far fewer resources to diplomacy, strategic communications, and public engagement.
As images, accusations, misinformation, and propaganda spread rapidly through social media, traditional media, universities, and international institutions, critics argue that Israel’s response was often fragmented, reactive, inconsistent, or absent altogether.
Many Israelis and diaspora Jews expected a coordinated effort to present evidence, explain military actions, counter misinformation, and communicate Israel’s position clearly to international audiences. Critics contend that this effort was insufficient and allowed hostile narratives to become deeply entrenched in public discourse.

The Impact on Jewish Communities Worldwide

The consequences extend far beyond Israel itself.
Millions of Jews around the world increasingly find themselves facing hostility connected to events in the Middle East despite having no influence over Israeli government policy.
Many Jewish communities have expressed concern about their long-term safety and sense of belonging in countries where they have lived for generations.
Critics argue that the government paid insufficient attention to the concerns of diaspora Jewish communities and failed to adequately appreciate how developments in Israel would affect Jews worldwide. Unfortunately, little has changed on the part of the government since October 7.

Long-Term Consequences

Many observers worry that the damage to Israel’s international standing may have consequences that extend well beyond the current conflict.
Future diplomatic relationships may become more difficult to manage.
Academic, cultural, and scientific partnerships could face increasing pressure.
Foreign investment and economic cooperation may be affected by concerns about instability and international isolation.
Perhaps most importantly, younger generations around the world are forming opinions about Israel today that could influence political, economic, and diplomatic relationships for decades to come.
Israel’s most reliable ally, the United States has seen for the first time a major deterioration in the Congress of support for Israel. What, a short time ago was a standard, support for Israel crossed political and party lines to the extent that many politicians fought who was a stronger supporter of Israel during election campaigns. That support is now neither a standard nor a given.

A Failure of Strategic Vision

Critics argue that this government’s greatest weakness has not been military strategy but political strategy.
Military force has increasingly become the primary instrument of national policy.
Diplomacy, coalition-building, conflict resolution, regional engagement, and long-term planning have received far less attention.
Many Israelis believe that military victories alone cannot secure Israel’s future.
A nation also requires allies, legitimacy, partnerships, and a vision for what comes after the fighting ends.
At no part of the war, has the government/Prime Minister developed or presented any tangible strategic vision or plan for the war, an exit strategy, the day after, rebuilding, international relations, or anything else.

Political Patronage and Government Expansion

While citizens were asked to sacrifice, the government continued expanding ministries, political appointments, and coalition spending.
Israel maintains one of the largest governments in its history.
Critics argue that many of these positions existed not because they were necessary, but because they were politically useful.
The contrast between public sacrifice and political expansion has contributed to growing public cynicism.

Corruption and Cronyism

Public trust in government institutions has steadily eroded.
Appointments based on loyalty rather than merit have become a recurring criticism.
Many Israelis believe that political survival has become the government’s primary objective and that institutional independence has increasingly been viewed as an obstacle rather than a strength.

Iran
For years, Netanyahu argued that he alone possessed the experience necessary to confront the Iranian threat.
Yet Iran remains a major strategic challenge.
Its missile capabilities persist.
American intelligence admits that they have no idea how many ballistic missiles Iran still has but conservatively estimate it to be at least 70% of what they had before the war began.
Its regional influence remains significant.
Its military infrastructure continues to recover.
Following direct confrontations between Israel together with the US against Iran, many security analysts warn that Iran retains substantial capabilities (nuclear, missiles and drones) and continues rebuilding damaged infrastructure.

Strategic Dependence
A growing number of Israelis believe that Israel has become increasingly dependent on decisions and dictates made in Washington.
Rather than setting and executing an independent national strategy, critics argue that key strategic decisions are increasingly shaped by American political considerations. This situation has progressed to the point that the Prime Minister has to receive a green light from Trump before giving the OK to the IDF for any action, mission, response or tactical moves.
For a country founded on the principle of self-reliance, this dependence raises profound questions.

No Accountability

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the past four years is not what happened.
It is what happened afterward.
Not a single senior political figure has accepted responsibility for the failures that led to October 7.
No resignation.
No admission of responsibility.
No accountability.
Instead, blame has repeatedly been directed toward military and intelligence institutions while political leaders distance themselves from the consequences of decisions made under their watch.

The Refusal of a State Commission of Inquiry

Nearly every major national failure in Israeli history has eventually been examined through an independent State Commission of Inquiry.
Yet the government continues to resist establishing one for October 7.
Instead, it has promoted alternatives that critics argue would be more heavily influenced by political interests.
Many Israelis believe that without an independent investigation, the country cannot learn the lessons necessary to prevent another catastrophe.

Conclusion

Governments are ultimately judged not by speeches but by results.

After nearly four years, Israelis can look at the record and see:

The worst security failure in the nation’s history.

The deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.

Hundreds of hostages.

Hundreds of fallen soldiers.

A prolonged war without a clear conclusion.

Economic decline.

Growing social division.

International isolation.

Rising antisemitism.