In a recent interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Lebanese Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habib revealed that just a few days before his assassination by Israel, Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah had agreed to a 21-day cease-fire deal, reportedly brokered with the involvement of U.S. President Joe Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron. Perhaps this was what had assured Nasrallah that he would be safe in a bunker in Dahieh, Beirut – the town after which the IDF named its notorious military doctrine of terrorizing civilians as a method of pressuring hostile governments. Of course, there is nothing surprising about this particular event, as the Israeli practice of eliminating those who could be so dangerous as to seek peace is pretty well known. It is also emblematic of Israel’s absolute refusal to pursue diplomacy, enabled by consistent support from the U.S. and its Western satellites.

Indeed, the assassination of Nasrallah was merely one of numerous instances where Israeli conduct has undermined diplomatic efforts. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, who had been involved in cease-fire talks in Qatar, was similarly targeted. And it is virtually impossible to count the number of occasions where Israeli officials displayed a complete lack of interest in dialogue and instead showed great enthusiasm for war and destruction, understanding very well that they would always be backed by the U.S. in their maniacal fantasies.

This disregard for diplomacy extends to Israel’s relationship with international institutions. Its disdain for the United Nations – the central body of international diplomacy – serves as a perfect example. Despite its brutally targeting U.N. staff during the genocide in Gaza, the Israeli government has had to audacity to "express outrage" over even the slightest critiques from the U.N. A recent case in point is Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz declaring U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres persona non grata for the stated reason of failing to unequivocally condemn Iran's missile strike on Israel. Katz had previously accused Guterres of "turning a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Hamas," framing the U.N. as increasingly biased against Israel. How dare a U.N. secretary-general show even minimal care for Palestinian life and recognize, albeit hesitantly, Iran’s right to self-defense?

In this connection, concerns have been raised about the future of diplomacy worldwide. If Israel, with the "ironclad support" of the global hegemon, can always opt for waging war against its adversaries rather than engaging in diplomacy and can destroy everyone who gets in its way without facing any consequences, other states too may be emboldened to abandon diplomatic efforts and resort to force whenever they believe they can get away with it. In fact, a similar concern had been voiced by Western pundits who were extremely quick to highlight that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could set a dangerous precedent in this way, encouraging other states to invade their neighbors when they feel they can do so without repercussions. Of course, none of this has been discussed by the same people in relation to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, as well as the yearlong genocide it has been conducting in Gaza – a reminder that the media in the U.S. is largely controlled by the state.

Setting aside the usual hypocrisy, Israel’s dismissal of diplomacy must be read carefully. It must be realized, for example, that expecting the Israeli establishment to prioritize political dialogue over military action betrays a certain degree of naivete, to say the least. For it is to assume that Israel’s rejection of participating in negotiations is simply a result of political decisions taken in Tel Aviv, which, in turn, is to ignore a much deeper, structural dynamic at play, one that can be traced back to Israel’s role within the broader framework of U.S. imperial strategy. As Alexander Haig, former U.S. secretary of state under President Ronald Regan, famously stated, "Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk." This statement was not merely a metaphor but a clear indication of how Israel is perceived within U.S. foreign policy. It is first and foremost a military asset, and expecting a military asset to adopt non-militaristic means to resolve its problems would be clearly absurd.

This is not to deny that a certain militaristic mindset is entrenched in the Israeli ethos itself. However, even that has much to do with Israel’s historical relationship with the West. The founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, explained the Zionist project as follows: "For Europe we could constitute part of the wall of defense against Asia: we could serve as an outpost against barbarism. As a neutral state we would remain in contact with all of Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence." (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent address to Macron echoed Herzl’s words as quoted here, when the former complained about the call by the latter to halt arms deliveries to Israel: "As Israel fights the forces of barbarism led by Iran, all civilized countries should be standing firmly by Israel’s side.")

That Israel agrees to play the role of a Western military outpost – particularly an American one – in exchange for a guarantee of its existence as a Jewish ethnostate means that it cannot meaningfully pursue diplomacy, not only because it is essentially a military outpost, but also because that is precisely what makes it an integral part of "the West." In his excellent book, "The Myths of Liberal Zionism," the dissident Israeli poet Yitzhak Laor describes this situation by asking a rhetorical question: "Why disarm ourselves if the fences not only help us be safe, but also help us stay in ‘the West’?"

Thus, we cannot get to the root of the problem by analyzing Israel as a separate entity. The habit of bypassing diplomacy and exercising unrestrained force to achieve one’s objectives applies equally to Israel’s greatest benefactor and protector, namely the U.S. We see this pattern play out almost everywhere in the world, from Ukraine to Taiwan, from Syria to Venezuela. If someone is to be convinced of the worth of diplomacy, then, it is surely not Katz, but U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, whose limited talent for the guitar seems to surpass his ability to manage international crises through meaningful diplomacy. If the U.S. abandoned its policy of treating every problem as a nail to be hammered, then Israel too would have to be more willing to engage in diplomacy.