You cannot negotiate a ceasefire, let alone peace, with a man who prefers to wage war.

That is the conundrum facing a host of suddenly fretting Western leaders, led by retiring US President Joe Biden, who insist – publicly, at least – that they are working hard to prevent another, cataclysmic war from engulfing the Middle East.

Let’s pretend for a moment that their “concerns” are sincere. Then, these same Western leaders ought to acknowledge finally that they are, in large measure, responsible for that pressing conundrum.

Long before October 7, 2023, Biden and company have, at every turn, enabled, armed, and provided diplomatic cover for their “man” in Tel Aviv – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his extremist government.

Netanyahu has reciprocated by telling the chumps in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels, and Ottawa who, at every turn, have enabled, armed and provided him and his fanatical coalition government with diplomatic cover to – let me put this as politely as I can – take a hike.

Deleted: True to obstinate form, Netanyahu has rebuffed efforts to arrange for a 21-day ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah with a view to crafting a more sustainable truce.

A strutting Netanyahu made his opposition to any brokered settlement plain in a typical “I am the toughest dude on the block” address to the United Nations General Assembly on Friday where he warned Iran that the “long arm of Israel” can “reach… the entire Middle East”.

The chumps in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels, and Ottawa have feigned surprise and disappointment at Netanyahu’s grating intransigence. Now, belatedly, Biden et al want to play “peacemaker” when, all along, they have remained true to the West’s defining Middle East doctrine: Kill first, think later.

They have been joined lately in this predictable bit of chicanery by Western news organisations who, despite their history of blatant support for the disastrous “kill first, think later” policy, wish Netanyahu would cease what he has been doing with their explicit and hearty approval.

And if he can’t be stopped, some of them want him toppled to prevent “Lebanon from turning into Gaza”.

It’s too funny. Netanyahu – the saint turned apparent sinner – isn’t going anywhere. The bulk of Israelis support what their beloved prime minister has done and is doing in Gaza and the occupied West Bank with an evangelical thirst and zeal.

If it is necessary to bludgeon Lebanon until it resembles Gaza and cause the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents, well, so be it. The Lebanese “asked for it” and they’re going to get a stinging taste of “Israel’s wrath”, too.

Netanyahu isn’t going to “change course” because he is incapable of changing course. He knows that war is his golden ticket to remaining prime minister and, by convenient coincidence, helps him stave off those troublesome pending criminal indictments.

Time may also be his ally. Netanyahu is banking on former US President Donald Trump soon returning to the Oval Office. If that happens, America’s vacuous rhetorical reservations vis-à-vis his genocidal destruction of Gaza and planned invasion of Lebanon will evaporate.

Netanyahu is loath, as well, to hand Trump’s opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, a foreign policy “victory” on the eve of the presidential election.

Harris keeps repeating, like a metronome, that she and the president are “working around the clock” for a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. It is a ridiculous pantomime and Harris, I suspect, realises it.

The chumps in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels, and Ottawa embraced Netanyahu – knowing, full well, that their disagreeable man in Tel Aviv has had a lifelong allergy to diplomacy.

Still, they held him tight to their welcoming bosoms. And they told him, again and again, that he could, in effect, kill as many Palestinians as he wanted to, for as long as he wanted to, whenever he wanted to.

Lebanon’s fate was sealed in that instant. But the chumps in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels and Ottawa didn’t possess the good sense or foresight to recognise what would inevitably follow.

Remember, these are supposed “statesmen” and “statewomen” who tout their phantom credentials as foreign policy “experts”. That’s too funny, part two.

But, as I alluded to earlier, I’m not convinced that Biden and his compliant confederates are really that upset by Netanyahu’s plans to kill more people in more places since they share the same geopolitical aim to “destroy” Hezbollah. Towards that impossible end, Israel has assassinated Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hezbollah, proving the West’s kill first, think about the consequences later strategy for the combustible region still reigns.

The deaths of more than 41,000 Palestinians and counting – most of them children and women – haven’t prompted Biden and friends to halt arming, defending, and giving Israel diplomatic shade at the United Nations.

Only last week, Germany, the UK, and Canada abstained from a UN motion – sponsored by the State of Palestine – demanding that Israel end its illegal occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The US voted against.

The resolution was based on a ruling by the International Court of Justice in July that said Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territory is unlawful and must end.

The supposed “split” between Israel and its steadfast allies in the West is an exercise in cynical, self-serving posturing. It is a mirage designed to suggest that Western capitals are concerned about the destiny of people they have never been that concerned about.

The truth is just as Western presidents and prime ministers have been content to permit Israel to vent, unrestrained, its “killing rage” and bomb Gaza into dust and memory, they will allow Netanyahu to do the same to Lebanon in due and deliberate course.

Lebanese civilians are as forgettable and disposable as Palestinian civilians. Their lives, their hopes, their dreams don’t matter. All that matters is Israel’s “right to defend itself”.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.