Historically aiding Palestinian cause by even just accepting refugees have not led to the best outcomes for those countries, namely Jordan and Lebanon suffered greatly from it.
That's not the reason.
Arab societies are pre-modern politically.The are neither democratic nor nationalistic. There is no concept of "Arab nation" just the Islamic Ummah. When considering Arab politics apply the dynamics of Europe in the Middle Ages during the Crusades - competing feudal vassalage with overarching Catholic ethics plus holy war of
Christendom against the infidels.
All Arab populations are structured along tribal hierarchies where tribes and clans compete with each other for power and influence. Modern political and social institutions are like a mask that they adopt for the sake of communicating with western culture. They want to have armies as efficient as modern western states so they adopt a mask but underneath the traditional natural political dynamic subverts everything. "Arabs lose wars" because they wage two wars at the same time, one against external opponent and another within their own ranks. When Arabs were united under Islamic leadership they fought very effectively.
Islam is so prevalent culturally because it is the only political narrative that is socially binding. Without Islam they would immediately revert to local cults which result in permanent tribal war. Islam arose in that vacuum because it provided a unifying element which quickly outcompeted opponents. This is also why there is such attraction to the notions of Caliphate because it provides overarching structure and stability without interfering with traditional tribal culture.
Palestinians are both a foreign tribal element and problematic ideologically because Palestinian cause is secular and nationalistic. So they are rejected by the existing societal tribal structure and they are rejected by religious and political authorities. Nationalism in particular is problematic to any political authority that governs through military dictatorship or religious authority because it replaces both of them.
Egypt was willing to consider Palestinian cause because Nasser was a nationalist and promoted Pan-Arabism as an ideological movement. Nasser died in 1970 and his successor Sadat, who was a military officer, shifted Egypt toward military dictatorship that continues to this day.
Currently Egypt is undergoing a population boom that already exceeds economic growth or environmental capacity of the country. This caused the instability during Arab spring. They physically can't afford to accommodate 2m very young, impoverished and radicalised people who have been influenced by jihadist ideology since birth. Hamas is off-shoot of Muslim Brotherhood which Egypt considers to be a terrorist organisation, along with Hamas because it threatens the military dictatorship.
Jordan and Lebanon are also wrong examples. "Palestinians are troublemakers" is Jewish propaganda.
Jordan had a coup attempt during Black September because Jordan formally annexed West Bank (hence the name) in 1949 and Palestinians considered themselves part of the society so they were trying to remove a leadership that they viewed as collaborating with an occupying force. Also population of Jordan proper in 1952 was 600k so population of WB would be larger in size. Total population for Palestine in 1952 is estimated by UN at 900k. Palestinians were also organised along nationalistic and secular lines while Jordan is a tribal monarchy. Monarchy was backed by US because it secures the most vulnerable border for Israel - hence the special ally status.
Lebanon was unstable throughout its entire history because it is a small, vulnerable, artificial creation with competing socio-political groups that was stabilised by economic growth in the 1950-60 period. Once refugees came in the economic situation worsened and with that the stability was gone.
The entire region is a basket case. Israel is just as politically unstable as all the other countries and is de facto a military dictatorship just with democratic facade. Look at who heads most of main parties - former military or intelligence officers.
----------------
This is useful for gauging escalation risks.
Iran is fortunately out of the equation with clear declaration that Israel must attack Iran first. Iran is ceding all action to its proxies.
Positions 3-5 are Shia militias in Iraq.
Hezbollah however declared entry into war if IDF enters Gaza which makes it almost inevitable as IDF
must enter Gaza at some point. They are likely delaying that moment not just because of the need to prepare mobilised reservists but also to prepare for Hezbollah's response.
This explains USN carriers in the theater. IDF doesn't have the capacity to suppress Hezbollah and fight Hamas and Syria at the same time. As IDF mobilises air force took the burden of countering Hamas and Syria so they don't have the numbers e.g. sufficient ground crews to achieve necessary number of sorties to counter Hez missiles.
Hez is no plausible threat to the CSG any more than CSG has a plausible chance to eliminate Hez missile positions before they enact significant damage to Israel.
The scale has 15km division. The darker shade to red marker is approx. 200km and lighter shade is 300km.
Red dots indicate IDF airbases.
Hezbollah is confirmed to have two main SRBMs: Fateh-110 (200 or 300km dependent on variant, 450kg warhead) and Zelzal-2/3 with GPS upgrades (200+ km, 600kg warhead) as well as large numbers of rocket artillery with 50-100km range.
SRBMs can at least disrupt operations of all bases in Tel Aviv region and closer dependent on how effective Israeli air defenses are.
There is definitely intense back-channel communication to achieve restraint. The US seems to be pushing Israel toward solutions which stretch military response over time hence comments on "long war".
Also:
Israeli war cabinet composition
- Prime Minister - Benjamin Netanyahu (Likud)
- Minister of Defense - Yoav Gallant (Likud)
- Minister without portfolio - Benny Gantz (National Unity)
- Minister without portfolio - Gadi Eizenkot (National Unity)
- Minister of Strategic Affairs - Ron Dermer (Likud, ambassador to the US 2013-2021, US-born, moved to Israel in 1996)
The government was approved by Knesset 68/120 for. Gantz and Eizenkot are both generals of IDF.
Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid, 24 seats) refused to join unity government until Religious Zionist Party (Bezalel Smotrich) and Otzma Yehudit (Itamar Ben Gvir) are ejected. So far this hasn't happened probably because Netanyahu still fears prosecution and maintaining the coalition protects him personally.
At the same time Ben Gvir is threatening protests in West Bank due to him being excluded from he cabinet. He controls the newly formed National Security portfolio and a newly formed paramilitary National Guard, augmenting the Police, directly subordinate to him.