Given its clumsiness in dealing with instances of antisemitism in both of Australia’s major capitals, the Albanese government has shown a measure of courage in supporting the UN resolution calling for a permanent and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza.

In its own way, the Netanyahu government continues to display the courage that comes with recklessness as it perseveres with its onslaught against the Palestinian people in Gaza and the destruction of their infrastructure.

Its recklessness is further on display as it capitalises on the fall of the Assad regime in Syria by occupying strategic vantage points in southern Syria and bombing what remains of Syria’s navy in the ports of Latakia and Al-Bayda. And the fragile truce in southern Lebanon remains subject to the Netanyahu government’s unilateral decisions to attack anything near Beirut that it deems to be Hezbollah-inspired terrorist activity.

Nonetheless, the Netanyahu government must be concerned at the new uncertainties that complicate even further the regional political and strategic landscape, which are, of course, so deeply intertwined.

The collapse of the Assad regime brings no certainty to Syria. Transition to any government with the legitimacy and authority to bring the country together is problematic at best. Chaos is the more likely outcome. The various rebel groups are highly localised, depending variously on Russian, Turkish, Iranian and, in the case of the Kurds, even American support. Syria is a broken state and the local jackals are ready to pick over its bones.

Russia is a clear loser. Preoccupied with its war of attrition in Ukraine, it could no longer prop up Assad sufficiently to resist Turkey’s ability to propel the ISIS-inspired rebel group Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham to the occupation of Damascus and Assad’s overthrow.

Iran is also a loser. After occupying the presidential palace, the first thing the HTS rebels did was to occupy the Iranian embassy in Damascus – something for which Iran once enjoyed its own notoriety. But more significantly for Iran, it is now considerably more difficult to destabilise either Syria or Israel by providing weapons and materiel to the Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. And with its loss of sway in Syria and Lebanon, Iran itself becomes considerably more unpredictable.

Lebanon’s situation is even more precarious. There is simply no one with the will or the means to prevent Israel from playing whatever game it wishes in southern Lebanon.

Turkey emerges as the big winner. It is now able to act unhindered in Syria, having seen off both Iran and Russia, and can prosecute its campaign to annihilate the Kurds with effective impunity. The US has neither the will nor the interest to intervene.

So, where does this leave the Netanyahu government and Israel? It has a renewed strategic focus on Turkey, which will have a determining effect on Syria’s future. And in Erdogan, Netanyahu has a formidable opponent, and in the Turkish armed forces a formidable potential adversary. But Netanyahu is nothing if not opportunistic. He can see that Erdogan has his hands full with Syria, and his own version of the Palestinians in the form of the Kurds. Iran will remain as problematic for Turkey as it is for Israel.

So Netanyahu’s ambitions in Gaza are left intact, and his ability to prosecute the war against Hamas – and a fortiori the Palestinian people – is, if anything, strengthened.

Netanyahu does not mind pariah-dom. In fact, he seems to enjoy maintaining a victim identity for Israel as it continues to have most of the UN ranged against its occupation and destruction of Gaza. He is happy to flout the principles of humanitarian law, just as he is happy to ignore the law of armed conflict. He is just as happy to invade a neighbouring country without provocation by occupying the area around Mount Hermon in Syria, and to destroy facilities in Syria on the pretext of eliminating chemical weapons (though there is a precedent for that). And he is also happy to starve and batter a people into submission in defiance of both world opinion and UN resolutions.

So, what’s in it for Netanyahu to accept and observe a permanent and unconditional ceasefire? As with the proposed two-state solution, which Netanyahu vehemently opposes, the answer is nothing.

Allan Behm is adviser to the International & Security Affairs Program at The Australia Institute, Canberra