In Gaza, Israel has systematically dismantled Hamas’s military infrastructure, targeting and eliminating most of its senior leadership and drastically reducing the group’s military capabilities. This has effectively reduced Hamas from a powerful militant entity to an insurgent force, diminishing its ability to wage sustained large-scale attacks on Israel.

In Lebanon, the Israeli military has dealt a crippling blow to Hezbollah, neutralising much of its leadership and destroying most of its extensive rocket arsenal. These actions have reportedly paved the way for an agreement under which Hezbollah will retreat from the Israeli border, significantly reducing the immediate threat to northern Israel.

The weakening of Hezbollah also appears to have contributed to destabilisation of the Assad regime in Syria.

Iran, the primary sponsor of Hamas, Hezbollah and other anti-Israel proxies, has seemingly been deterred by these outcomes. The combined defeats of its allies in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria have weakened its regional influence and reduced its capacity to project power against Israel.

As with most populists, Netanyahu relies on at least some messages that are genuinely popular and have more than a grain of truth. Many Israelis do feel – rightly – ganged up on at international forums such as the United Nations, and misunderstood in their frontline stand against global jihadism.

Australia surely meant well voting in favour of a UN resolution calling Israel’s presence in the West Bank illegal, but it stepped into a political morass by doing so. The illegality claim is dubious, whereas the more compelling issue – even for Israeli liberals – is perhaps the occupation’s lack of wisdom (and unfairness to the Palestinians).

Loading

Netanyahu’s claim that the Albanese government’s rhetoric could have inspired the arson attack on the Adass Israel synagogue is weak and unprovable, but it serves his purposes. It is also not entirely implausible; it’s not inconceivable that governments criticising Israel might inadvertently embolden antisemitism.

But his confidence should not obscure the fact that Israel itself remains deeply divided over his leadership and policies. His hardline approach to the West Bank, his judicial overhaul and his combative diplomacy have sparked massive protests and alienated large segments of the Israeli population. Many Israelis reject the idea that criticising settlement policy or military actions is inherently anti-Israel. These domestic divisions complicate his claim to represent Israel on the world stage as a unified voice of resistance against an international left. Were an election held today, he would probably lose, and badly.

Dan Perry is a former chief editor of the Associated Press in Europe, Africa and the Middle East.

Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.