Israel Justified Its Wars by Calling Enemies “Crazy.” Now, the Warning Signs All Apply to Israel.
Analysis Summary
This article uses the work of an Israeli strategic thinker, Yehezkel Dror, to argue that under Netanyahu, Israel is acting like a 'crazy state' — pursuing aggressive, ideologically driven goals while justifying them as strategic necessity. It draws on Dror’s own framework to turn his ideas against Israel, suggesting that its policies may be dangerously irrational rather than self-defensive.
FATE Analysis
Four dimensions of psychological manipulation: how content captures Focus, exploits Authority, triggers Tribal identity, and engineers Emotion.
Focus signals
"Dror went on to lay out the criterion for labeling states — Israel’s enemies — as 'crazy.' Fifty years later, however, Dror’s account of craziness and the warning signs he suggested looking for apply more readily to Israel than to its Arab enemies."
The article uses a reversal of an old framework (Dror’s 'crazy states') to create a novel analytical lens, positioning the current Israeli state as the embodiment of what was once projected onto its enemies. This reframing generates intellectual novelty and captures attention by suggesting a paradigm shift in understanding Israeli policy.
"Netanyahu is not just following in the footsteps of predecessors; he has made the craziness that has occasionally marked Israeli policies into a dominant trait."
This statement frames Netanyahu’s leadership as a qualitative break from past Israeli governance, implying a new and dangerous phase in Israeli strategic culture. The language suggests an unprecedented escalation, which serves to heighten the reader’s sense of urgency and novelty.
Authority signals
"Ian S. Lustick is the Bess W. Heyman Chair, Emeritus, in the Political Science Department of the University of Pennsylvania."
The author's academic credentials are highlighted upfront, lending institutional weight and scholarly legitimacy to the argument. While this is standard disclosure, it also functions to elevate the perceived authority of the analysis, especially when engaging with complex geopolitical theory.
"Dror fashioned himself after Herman Kahn, the American defense intellectual who made his name by 'thinking the unthinkable' — how to fight a thermonuclear war."
By associating Dror with Herman Kahn — a well-known figure in Cold War strategic thought — the article leverages established intellectual authority in nuclear deterrence theory to ground its critique. This appeals to readers familiar with strategic studies and enhances the credibility of the conceptual framework being deployed.
Tribe signals
"What were, in the 1960s and 1970s, the outlandish ambitions of some marginal intellectuals, extreme rabbis, and retired generals are now the goals pursued by leading government ministers, senior security service officials, and settlement leaders."
The article constructs a clear boundary between a rational past and a radicalized present, positioning current Israeli leadership as having crossed into ideological extremism. This creates a dichotomy between 'us' (the informed, critical reader) and 'them' (the extremist Israeli political elite), reinforcing tribal alignment through moral distancing.
"If it is, then for Israel’s Lobby to be successful, U.S. policies toward Israel and the Middle East must themselves be crazy and therefore dangerous to American interests and to the world."
The phrase 'Israel’s Lobby' invokes a contested identity category often associated with dual loyalty debates. By linking U.S. foreign policy failure to the influence of this lobby, the article risks converting political critique into a marker of group allegiance, potentially alienating or implicating individuals based on perceived affiliations rather than arguments.
"Intensive polling done between 2022 and 2024 showed that four to five times as many Jewish Israelis identified themselves as 'right-wing' than as 'left-wing.'"
While citing polling data, the presentation implies a broad societal consensus behind extremist positions, amplifying the perception that mainstream Israeli society has collectively embraced radicalism. This can serve to delegitimize dissent within Israel by making moderate voices appear statistically negligible.
Emotion signals
"The levels of violence he authorized against Palestinians in Gaza shocked the world. Netanyahu’s endorsement of transferring the entire population of Gaza out of Palestine; the bloody attacks he unleashed against Hezbollah and civilian neighborhoods in Lebanon; the wars he launched against Iran; and his attempt to assassinate Hamas negotiators in Qatar..."
The passage accumulates emotionally charged descriptors ('shocked the world,' 'bloody attacks,' 'wars he launched') in rapid succession, creating a crescendo of moral condemnation. The disproportionate emphasis on aggressive actions — without contextual balance — engineers outrage, particularly given the speculative nature of some claims (e.g., assassination attempts).
"Using Dror’s measures, we can ask whether Israel itself is crazy. If it is, then for Israel’s Lobby to be successful, U.S. policies toward Israel and the Middle East must themselves be crazy and therefore dangerous to American interests and to the world."
The rhetorical structure positions the authors and their audience as morally and intellectually superior — capable of applying detached, rational criteria to expose collective delusion. This framing elevates the reader above those allegedly blinded by loyalty or ideology, fostering a sense of epistemic and ethical superiority.
"Amid Israel’s bombardment of Iran in July 2025, before the U.S. joined the war, the grand scale of such ambitions — consistent with the unattainability of the goals crazy states set for themselves — became apparent..."
The suggestion that Israel’s ambitions are so expansive they resemble those of a 'crazy state' and could draw the U.S. into war taps into fears of uncontrollable escalation. The mention of U.S. involvement 'before the U.S. joined the war' introduces a speculative but alarming scenario, amplifying anxiety about unintended consequences.
Narrative Analysis (PCP)
How the article reshapes thinking: Perception (what beliefs are targeted), Context (what information is shifted or omitted), and Permission (what behavior is being encouraged).
The article is designed to produce the belief that Israel, under Netanyahu’s leadership and influenced by far-right ideology, exhibits characteristics of a 'crazy state' as defined by Yehezkel Dror—namely, systematically pursuing expansive, destructive goals with calculated rationality while violating international norms. The mechanism involves applying Dror’s own framework for identifying dangerous states to Israel itself, thereby reframing Israeli policy not as self-defense but as ideologically driven aggression masked as strategic necessity.
The article shifts context by redefining what constitutes abnormal or dangerous behavior in international relations. By anchoring the discussion in Dror’s academic work on 'crazy states,' it normalizes the idea that powerful states can become existential threats not due to irrationality but through highly rational, morally unmoored pursuit of grandiose goals. This makes the conclusion—that Israel may now be such a state—feel like a logical inference rather than an inflammatory accusation.
The article omits any discussion of operational constraints, intelligence assessments, or documented security threats that might inform Israeli military decisions, such as verified plots, regional alliances between hostile actors, or asymmetric warfare tactics used by groups like Hamas or Hezbollah. The absence of this context prevents readers from evaluating whether certain actions stem from perceived existential threats rather than ideological extremism alone.
The reader is nudged toward viewing U.S. support for Israel as potentially complicit in destabilizing and unlawful actions, and thus toward questioning or withdrawing political and material backing. Emotionally, the article encourages skepticism toward mainstream narratives justifying Israeli policies and fosters acceptance of critical or oppositional stances, including reevaluating the influence of pro-Israel lobbying in American foreign policy.
SMRP Pattern
Four manipulation maintenance tactics: Socializing the idea as normal, Minimizing concerns, Rationalizing with logic, and Projecting blame.
"If it is, then for Israel’s Lobby to be successful, U.S. policies toward Israel and the Middle East must themselves be crazy and therefore dangerous to American interests and to the world."
Red Flags
High-severity indicators: silencing dissent, coordinated messaging, or weaponizing identity to shut down debate.
"What were, in the 1960s and 1970s, the outlandish ambitions of some marginal intellectuals, extreme rabbis, and retired generals are now the goals pursued by leading government ministers..."
Techniques Found(5)
Specific propaganda techniques identified using the SemEval-2023 academic taxonomy of 23 techniques across 6 categories.
"Netanyahu transformed himself into the epitome of Israeli craziness."
Uses emotionally charged and hyperbolic language ('epitome of Israeli craziness') to frame Netanyahu in an extreme, irrational light, going beyond factual description and invoking psychological pathology to discredit his leadership.
"We’re changing the face of the world. I have determined that we will achieve all our goals."
Presents Netanyahu’s statement as evidence of megalomaniacal overreach, framing a geopolitical ambition as wildly disproportionate and unrealistic, thereby exaggerating its scope to suggest delusional thinking rather than strategic intent.
"Begin, he once wrote, was 'a Hitlerist type: a racist, willing to destroy all the Arabs for the sake of Greater Israel.'"
Associates Menachem Begin with Hitler through the quoted label 'Hitlerist type,' linking him to one of the most universally condemned figures in history to delegitimize his ideology and policies by association, regardless of historical nuance.
"Jewish history presents the Zionist movement another alternative: the Davidic option of building a Jewish commonwealth in the midst of an idolatrous world."
Invokes religious and historical values (the Davidic kingdom, divine mission) to justify contemporary political ambitions, framing expansionist goals as part of a sacred, redemptive tradition rather than a modern policy choice.
"Netanyahu gave a speech in September 2025 calling for Israel to expect and accept international isolation, adapt its economy toward autarchy, and see itself as a 21st century Sparta."
Frames Israel as a heroic, self-reliant warrior state ('21st century Sparta') using nationalistic imagery that glorifies militarism and separation from global norms, appealing to pride in strength and endurance.