HUNDREDS of mobile phone users have been hit by shock charges after an EE billing blunder.

Some customers have been billed as much as £400 on top of their usual bill for calls that should have been included in their contracts.

1

Most mobile phone contracts come with an unlimited allowance for UK calls and texts, which is the industry standard.

However, some EE customers were wrongly charged after the company began moving their accounts to a new billing system.

The issues first started in September, and hundreds of affected customers have complained on EE‘s community forum.

One affected customer said: “I’ve been charged £220 in calls even though I live in [the] UK and only call UK numbers.

“I’m meant to have unlimited calls and texts and data.”

Another said: “I had the same problem and was billed for £240+ for calls that should have been inside my allowance.”

A third said: “I have just found out that the same thing has happened to me.

“Almost had a heart attack when I was charged £268 over 2 weeks.” said a third customer.

The overcharging amounts range from approximately £90 to £400.

Some affected customers have reported that, despite lodging multiple complaints, they have struggled to secure refunds and were initially informed that they would still have to pay the erroneous charges, according to ISPreview, which first reported the issues.

EE told The Sun that you do not need to take any action as it is proactively contacting those affected and automatically issuing refunds.

However, some customers have reported online that they have yet to receive their refunds.

EE told The Sun that a “small number” of customers have been affected by the issue and it apologised for any inconvenience caused.

The network is not actively compensating customers whose bills have been affected.

However, some customers have successfully requested compensation by contacting EE directly.

One customer shared on the EE forum: “They have offered me £30 off my next bill in addition to a refund for £79 worth of extra charges.”

If you have faced substantial extra charges that have impacted your ability to pay your bills or other expenses, we strongly encourage you to contact EE and request compensation.

If EE is unwilling to offer redress and you remain unsatisfied, it’s worth submitting a formal complaint.

You can do this by calling 150 from your EE mobile or 07953 966 150 from any other phone.

If you’d prefer to write, you can send your complaint to resolutions-store@ee.co.uk or post a letter to the following address:

EE Mobile & Broadband
EE Customer Services
6 Camberwell Way
Sunderland
Tyne and Wear
SR3 3XN
United Kingdom

When sending your complaint, be sure to include as much evidence proving that you’ve been financially affected by EE’s billing blunder.

TELECOMS COMPLAINTS PROCESS

If you’re unhappy with the service you’ve received, you’ll first need to contact your provider’s customer services department and explain the problem.

If this doesn’t resolve the issue, you can make a formal complaint to the company.

Details of how to do this will be on the back of your bill and on the company’s website.

Depending on your complaint type, you’ll be able to contact our team by web chat, telephone or by post.

You’ll need to let the company know what has happened and what you want it to do to put things right.

If a formal complaint gets you nowhere, after eight weeks you can ask for a “deadlock letter” and take your dispute to the appropriate Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) scheme.

TAKE YOUR COMPLAINT TO AN ADR

ADR schemes are free to use and will act as an independent middleman between yourself and the service provider when an initial complaint cannot be resolved.

There are two ADR schemes in the UK – Communications Ombudsman and CISAS. 

Your provider is required to be a member of one of these and you can find out which one your provider is covered by on the Ofcom website.

Before you can submit your complaint to it, you must have logged a formal complaint with your provider and worked with the firm to resolve it.

You must also have received a so-called deadlock letter, where the provider refers your complaint to the appropriate ADR.

You can also complain if you haven’t had a satisfactory solution to your problem within eight weeks.

To make a complaint fill in the ADR scheme claims form on its website – or write a letter if you’d prefer.

The ADR scheme then bases its decision on the evidence you and the company submit.

If you choose to accept its decision, your supplier will then have 28 days to comply.

But if an individual chooses not to accept the ADR’s final decision, they lose the right to the resolution offer.

Customers still have the right to take their complaints further through the courts.

But remember this can be a costly and lengthy exercise, so it’s worth thinking carefully before taking this step.

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

At least 22 people were killed by a series of Israeli air strikes in the heart of Beirut, stoking fears that Israel’s pursuit of Hizbollah was extending deeper into the Lebanese capital. 

The attack struck more than 5km from the southern suburbs that have been a focus of Israel’s intensifying offensive against the Lebanon-based militant movement. It was the second time that Israeli forces have hit central Beirut in less than two weeks.

Lebanon’s caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati described the strike on Thursday evening as “totally unacceptable” as he renewed his calls for a ceasefire. At least 117 people were wounded in the attack, health authorities said.

Beirut was on edge on Friday as Israeli drones buzzed overhead and warplanes broke the sound barrier. The city is crammed with people fleeing the intense fighting that continued in south Lebanon on Friday. 

One of Thursday’s strikes hit a residential building not far from Lebanon’s national museum in an area filled with small shops and apartment blocks. A family of eight, including three children, were killed in the bombing, said a relative who declined to be named. Israel did not say who it was targeting.

“We’re all from southern Lebanon, and were displaced here in recent weeks due to Israeli aggression,” the relative told the Financial Times. “I don’t understand why they targeted us, these are just families.”

Lebanese are increasingly fearful that Israel is widening the scope of its targets by striking areas such as those hit on Thursday that are not known for having Hizbollah presence.

In the dilapidated Burj Abi Haidar neighbourhood, where the other Israeli strike hit, rescue workers were still recovering bodies on Friday, combing through the rubble of what residents said were at least three collapsed buildings. 

“A lot of the families around here are poor and have nothing to do with anything,” said Abu Ahmad, who lives in a building near the attack site. His grandfather’s apartment was in one of the collapsed buildings.

The Israel Defense Forces did not issue any warning to residents ahead of Thursday night’s bombing.

Israel says it is fighting the Iran-backed militant group to stop it firing rockets into northern Israel, which has displaced 60,000 Israelis.

Hizbollah says its attacks on Israel are in support of Hamas, the Iran-linked militant group that controls Gaza and whose October 7 rampage in Israel triggered the war.

After nearly a year of fire across the border, Israel assassinated Hizbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah last month. Its troops have since begun a ground offensive in southern Lebanon.

Speaking after a situation assessment with Israel’s Shin Bet internal security agency in southern Lebanon, the head of Israel’s military, Herzi Halevi, pledged that the fighting would continue “until we ensure that we can safely return the residents”.

He said: “If anyone considers rebuilding these villages again, they will know that it’s not worth constructing terrorist infrastructure because the IDF will neutralise them again.”

The fighting is having a punishing effect on civilians. Lebanese authorities say 1.2mn people have been forced to flee their homes, and more than 2,000 have been killed, mostly in the past two weeks.

On Thursday, Israeli forces fired a tank shell at the UN peacekeepers’ headquarters in south Lebanon, the UN said, injuring two international troops.

The strike on a watchtower within the base in the village of Ras al-Naqoura was the third time in 24 hours that Israeli fire had struck border posts used by Unifil, the UN’s interim force in Lebanon, the peacekeepers said. The peacekeeping mission patrols the UN-drawn Blue Line between northern Israel and southern Lebanon.

The incidents prompted an outcry from countries contributing to the peacekeeping force, including Italy. Rome’s defence minister, Guido Crosetto, said the incidents “may constitute war crimes”, adding: “This is not a mistake and not an accident.”

The injured Unifil soldiers were Indonesian, the country’s foreign minister Retno Marsudi said. Indonesia contributes 1,231 soldiers to the peacekeeping force, the largest number of the 50 participating countries.

The minister condemned the attack in a speech at a summit in Laos on Friday, warning that the credibility of the UN Security Council was being undermined by what she said were “ongoing violations of international law without meaningful consequences”.

Additional reporting by Giuliana Ricozzi in Rome

Cartography by Steven Bernard and Cleve Jones

The U.S. housing market has experienced unprecedented changes since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Just 2.5% of homes changed hands in the first eight months of 2024 — the lowest turnover rate in at least 30 years, according to a recent analysis by Redfin. This stagnation is part of the challenge faced by potential homebuyers and sellers alike, as they grapple with a combination of record-high home prices and elevated mortgage rates.

From January 2020 through August 2022, the price of the typical U.S. home increased by 40%, according to the Zillow Home Value Index, pushing the median sales price of an existing home to $416,700 in August 2024, according to the National Association of Realtors.

While the overall housing market has slowed, some areas have experienced a more pronounced downturn than others. Jarred Kessler, CEO of residential sale-leaseback solutions provider EasyKnock, predicts that these regional disparities will become even more pronounced in the coming years.

“What I actually do have pretty strong conviction of a more pronounced discrepancy between markets that are strong and doing well versus those that are not,” he says.

Regional Disparities Intensify

Kessler’s view aligns with recent data showing that metropolitan statistical areas in the South and the West have experienced the most significant growth in prices since the pandemic started. California appears to be bearing the brunt of the slowdown, with 7 of the 10 metro areas experiencing the lowest turnover levels located in the Golden State. Los Angeles, in particular, has seen the lowest turnover rate of any metro area analyzed by Redfin, with just 15 of every 1,000 homes changing hands — a 32% drop from the same period in 2019.

Jeremiah Vancans, a Los Angeles-based Realtor with Compass, attributes this trend to a combination of factors. “In a place like Los Angeles, wages aren’t keeping up with housing prices,” Vancans explained to CNN. “There is not that much new construction inventory hitting the market, and when it does, it’s not at entry-level prices.”

On the other end of the spectrum, Sunbelt cities and areas within commuting distance of New York City have offered homebuyers a larger pool of options. Phoenix, for instance, saw more homes change hands than any other metro area in Redfin’s analysis.

The regional disparities observed during the pandemic and post-pandemic eras aren’t entirely new. A study of home price data since 2000 reveals that the recent run-up in prices is an acceleration of trends that started in the recovery from the late-2000s housing bust.

For most of the 2010s, home price growth was faster in the West and South than in the Northeast and Midwest. The pandemic accelerated this trend, with the South experiencing the fastest rate of home price growth in the country. Consequently, the South is now closer to the Northeast in terms of home prices than it is to the Midwest, making the Midwest easily the most affordable part of the country.

The Interest Rate Factor

The Federal Reserve’s recent decision to cut interest rates after a prolonged period of increases has injected a new dynamic into the housing market. Mortgage rates have begun to fall in anticipation of further rate cuts, with the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate dropping to 6.08% in the week ending Sept. 26, according to Freddie Mac.

While this represents a significant decrease from the recent peak of 7.79% hit last fall, it remains higher than the average mortgage rates seen in the nearly 14 years between 2008 and 2022. This elevated rate environment has contributed to what experts call the “lock-in effect.”

“There has been very little incentive for people to sell homes,” explained Redfin’s economic research lead, Chen Zhao. “That very low inventory on the market was one of the primary drivers of there being so little turnover.”

According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, nearly 60% of the 50.8 million active mortgages have interest rates below 4%. This disparity between current and historical rates has made many homeowners reluctant to sell, further constraining inventory and driving up prices.

The Supply Challenge

A shortage of new home construction has exacerbated the issues facing the U.S. housing market. Experts estimate that the country needs to build more than 2 million homes to meet growing demand. This supply-demand imbalance has pushed home prices to record highs in many regions.

Kessler believes that addressing this supply issue will require cooperation between the public and private sectors. “I think the more folks in the government and the private sector partner up, I think the better things can become,” he states. “And I think that’s one of the things that could change the landscape of the housing market.”

However, the EasyKnock CEO also cautions against using the housing market as a political tool. “The biggest problem is the middle class is being used as pawns in these elections,” Kessler argues. “And I think at the end of the day, it’s too much talk. If you want to help these people, you should encourage incentives to help them.”

Alternative Solutions

In response to the challenges facing the housing market, companies like EasyKnock have developed alternative solutions to help homeowners convert the home equity they’ve accumulated. The company’s sale-leaseback model allows homeowners to sell their property to EasyKnock while continuing to live in the home as renters, with the option to repurchase the property in the future.

Kessler sees this approach as particularly beneficial for middle-class homeowners who may be struggling with high levels of personal debt. “I think if people have built up equity and they’re running a lot of personal debt they need a new solution,” he explains.

The sale-leaseback model offers several advantages for homeowners, including the ability to convert their home equity without moving, avoid real estate broker fees, and potentially benefit from future appreciation in home value. EasyKnock has also committed to capping annual rent increases at the greater of 2.5% or the consumer price index, providing some stability for those who choose this option.

Getting to a Healthy Housing Market

The future of the U.S. housing market remains uncertain, with experts predicting a long road to recovery. “Getting to a healthy housing market is very hard from this point,” said Redfin’s Zhao. “I think the answer is either some variation of, you need a huge amount of supply right to come on, whether that’s new construction, or we somehow unlock existing homeowners.”

Zhao estimates that it may take five to 10 years before the housing market begins to resemble its past state. In the meantime, regional disparities are likely to persist, with some markets recovering more quickly than others.

For his part, Kessler remains cautiously optimistic about the potential for innovation in the housing sector. “There should be a demand for innovation and support of innovation and choice,” he says. “I think that’s one of the things that could change the landscape of the housing market.”

Companies in France are bracing for a salvo of tax rises and higher labour costs in a deficit-cutting budget that risks undermining seven years of pro-business policies pushed by President Emmanuel Macron. 

Conservative premier Michel Barnier, who leads an uneasy power-sharing government with Macron’s centrists, on Thursday unveiled budget proposals that include tax increases on business and wealthy individuals in a reversal of the president’s agenda that signals his diminishing political influence.

French companies and foreign investors are bracing for further policy reversals and government belt-tightening that may damage fragile growth. 

One banker who declined to be named said the unstable business climate had already caused them to lose a deal in which a European company was circling a French one.

“The feedback from the board was ‘Is France still business-friendly?’” the banker said. “The real problem is the uncertainty. We’re struggling to tell clients what will happen next.”

For Barnier, the next steps are trying to pass an already unpopular budget despite having no parliamentary majority. Describing France as on the “precipice” of a financial crisis, Barnier said the budget was harsh medicine needed to cure a spiralling deficit that will reach more than 6 per cent of national output by the end of the year, far above the EU ceiling of 3 per cent.

Both Barnier and his finance and budget ministers have repeatedly insisted that they do not want to damage France’s success under Macron in attracting foreign investment, boosting growth and lowering unemployment. 

But their approach of leaning heavily on tax increases to plug the deficit hole is a major break with Macron’s economic strategy. For example, the new budget will delay a long-promised cut in production taxes, which groups pay on their activities regardless of whether they are profitable; experts have long said production taxes dent French competitiveness since they are higher than elsewhere. 

Macron has limited leverage to stop Barnier from picking apart his economic policies since his party lost snap elections he called over the summer. The premier now runs domestic affairs, while the president focuses on foreign diplomacy.

Companies with sales above €1bn will also have to pay a two-year “exceptional” tax that aims to raise €12bn, but groups of all sizes will be affected by eliminating tax incentives for those who employ low-income workers and apprentices.

Another proposal to phase out tax exemptions for employers of low-salary workers will in effect raise labour costs — yet another reversal of Macron’s approach that the Medef employers’ group condemned as “brutal” and ill-conceived.

“In the end, this is going to destroy several hundred thousand jobs in sectors that create a lot of jobs across France like in cleaning services, cafeterias and social aid,” Patrick Martin, the head of Medef, told business newspaper Les Echos.

Beyond taxes, executives and banks in Paris also fear that a shift to downbeat messaging will be enough to damage investment plans after years in which Macron was the cheerleader-in-chief for French business.

Xenia Legendre, a tax specialist and managing partner at Hogan Lovells in Paris, predicted that companies would not close operations in France because of proposals in the new budget, but could curtail future investments. “They might prefer to invest elsewhere in the next couple of years,” she said. 

Since his election in 2017, Macron has pushed through pro-business policies, making it easier for companies to hire and fire workers, abolishing a wealth tax and reducing the corporate tax rate from 33 per cent to 25 per cent. About €60bn in tax cuts were passed, and Macron stuck by a promise that there would be no tax rises on his watch. 

The “Macron effect” has worked particularly well in helping to lure traders to Paris after Brexit, with executives at the likes of JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley saying his overtures had helped beat competition from other financial centres such as Frankfurt. France topped foreign direct investment in Europe for five years running, according to consultancy E&Y, and unemployment has dropped significantly.

Yet Macron’s successive governments paid little attention to curtailing government spending since their bet was that higher growth and labour force participation would solve France’s deficit issues. When the Covid-19 pandemic hit in 2020 followed by the inflationary shock of the energy crisis two years later, the government spent heavily to blunt the impact on companies and households.

One former minister from Macron’s party conceded that some tax rises were needed to narrow the deficit, but said they should be temporary and limited in scope.

“If Michel Barnier unwinds Macron’s business-friendly policies then the president’s legacy will be swept away. All that is left of his original promises in 2017 is the economic progress — without it, nothing is left,” the person said. 

For his part, Macron has no intention of letting his economic record be dismantled, said people familiar with his thinking. On a trip to New York in September, Macron met with Wall Street executives including Blackstone boss Stephen Schwarzman and executives from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, to convince them that France was still open for business. 

“The goal was to also remind them why France needed fiscal consolidation. These are people who buy our debt too so that can be reassuring,” an Élysées official said of those talks. 

Macron grudgingly backed the idea of a one-off tax on big companies. “But it should be limited — we have not to forget the reality of our economy, the reality of our competitiveness and our position,” the president said.

Macron also still plans to hold his “Choose France” summit at Versailles next year — the eighth one — in which he hosts global chief executives.

Faced with the tax increases in the 2025 budget, France’s corporate leaders have for now kept a low profile.

Some such as shipping billionaire Rodolphe Saadé, head of Marseille-based container shipping giant CMA CGM, have even said they are prepared to do their bit — a sign of a broader mood of resignation among business chiefs who believe they could have had it worse. CMA CGM now faces a new tax on maritime shipping companies designed to raise €500mn.

“French bosses know the past 10 years have been pretty good for them,” said the chair of one company.

Data visualisation by Janina Conboye

The protection sector has recently lost some leading providers. First it was Canada Life calling time on its individual protection business, followed by Aegon selling to Royal London, and then Aviva merging with AIG Life.

The exits raised eyebrows, with many worrying about the impact on competition and innovation.

The Aviva-AIG Life deal caused the most alarm as AIG had been viewed by many as an innovator and challenger.

It had fostered a culture of innovation and brought many groundbreaking products and services to the market, people claimed, and they feared that AIG’s trailblazing spirit and pool of talent wouldn’t survive the merger process.

The worry in the sector was that AIG’s trailblazing spirit and pool of talent wouldn’t survive the merger process

It’s too early to say how this merger will play out. But some of the concerns raised have come to pass. Dozens of AIG staff, including senior managers, have been made redundant just months after Aviva completed the deal.

The £460m AIG acquisition also attracted the attention of the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) earlier this year. The CMA launched an investigation into the merger after concerns were raised about “a substantial lessening of competition”. However, it ruled out an in-depth probe following consultation with stakeholders.

The deal was given the green light, paving the way for Aviva to increase its market share with the addition of 1.3 million individual protection and 1.4 million group protection customers to its existing portfolio.

‘Asleep at the wheel’

Protection Guru founder Ian McKenna thinks the CMA was “asleep at the wheel” when it allowed the Aviva-AIG merger.

“They didn’t do their homework properly and they’ve landed the FCA with a problem. Ironically, the CMA is supposed to protect competition and quite literally they’ve damaged it. They’ve now created a scenario where something of the order of 50% of the market is made up of two insurers. That’s not good for providing a competitive environment.”

‘I think — and this could be part of the FCA review — that in some areas the market is stuck,’ says Kevin Carr

The UK protection market is lucrative but cut-throat as insurers battle for a shrinking market share amid an ongoing squeeze on incomes. This has affected their bottom line, making some businesses unviable.

However, experts say the departure of insurers has been happening since the 1990s. Notable names include AXA, Bupa, Old Mutual and Scottish Provident.

“Insurers large and small have always come and gone from the protection market,” says Kevin Carr, protection consultant and MD at Carr Consulting.

“If you look back over 10, 20, 30 years, a dozen or more have left and another dozen have joined. Beagle Street is coming next year and I’m told at least one more.

The exits raised eyebrows, with many worrying about the impact on competition and innovation

“The more important issue is not so much the number of insurers — remember that L&G and Aviva combined is half the market — but the specialisms: Aegon for large cases and business protection; Canada Life for certain lifestyles; AIG for added benefits.

“I also think — and this could be part of the FCA review — that in some areas the market is stuck. There are issues that need fixing but there is no first-mover advantage in fixing them, and you can’t all move at the same time because that is anti-competitive. So, some issues aren’t getting fixed.”

In August, the FCA announced a ground-breaking review of the protection sector. It said it would explore protection products, the competitive constraints on insurers and intermediaries, and potential conflicts of interest in the structure of commission.

The review is the latest in the regulator’s drive to ensure financial services firms deliver fair value and good outcomes for customers.

The UK protection market is lucrative but cut-throat

“Consumers should be able to buy products that meet their needs and provide fair value,” says FCA executive director of consumers and competition Sheldon Mills.

“We have seen indications that this may not be the case across the pure protection market, and we will act if we find the market is not working well.”

The FCA review will start later this year. It is a daunting task ­— but the protection market needs fixing to ensure more innovative products, better customer service and stronger competition.

Momodou Musa Touray is senior reporter

This article featured in the October 2024 edition of Money Marketing. 

If you would like to subscribe to the monthly magazine, please click here.

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

In the days after Hamas’s devastating October 7 attack, Benjamin Netanyahu’s political career looked finished. Israel’s prime minister and self-styled “Mr Security” had just overseen the country’s worst-ever security failure, and the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.

But as Israelis marked the grim anniversary of Hamas’s assault this week, after a tumultuous year in which the Middle East slid ever deeper into conflict, Israel’s most ruthless political operator was still at the helm.

Over the past 12 months, he has turned Israel’s fire on foes from Gaza and the occupied West Bank to Lebanon and Iran, and defied calls from the US and his own security chiefs for a ceasefire. Channelling the rage of a traumatised nation, he now pledges not just “total victory” over Hamas, but to “change the balance of power in the region for years”.

“Netanyahu has always had a sort of messianic belief that he is the only one who can save Israel from the dangers it faces,” says Aviv Bushinsky, who served as his chief of staff in the early 2000s. “That’s what drives him. Period.”

October 7 destroyed that image. Hamas’s attack was a catastrophic refutation of Netanyahu’s years-long approach of attempting to tame the militant group through a mix of military deterrence and economic inducements. It shook Israelis’ faith in their country’s security apparatus. Netanyahu’s long refusal to apologise for the failures that preceded it enraged his compatriots.

Ministers were heckled when they appeared in public. On streets not far from Netanyahu’s Jerusalem residence, “Fuck Bibi” — a reference to his childhood nickname — was repeatedly scrawled, scrubbed away and re-scrawled. Had there been a mechanism in his Likud party to replace him in the days after October 7, insiders say he might well have been removed.

Instead, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister clung on. He launched a ferocious bombardment and offensive in Gaza. But in the early days of the war, under US pressure and wary of opening a second front, he opted against colleagues’ calls for an all-out strike on Hizbollah, which had begun firing at Israel in support of Hamas.

Now, after devastating Gaza, Israel is ramping up its attacks elsewhere. In July, senior Hizbollah and Hamas figures were assassinated in Beirut and Tehran. In recent weeks, Israel has dramatically escalated its campaign against Hizbollah, killing its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, bombing thousands of targets and invading Lebanon.

For some, the shift is less a change in Netanyahu’s approach than the result of the evolving dynamics of the war, and a belated implementation of plans long advocated by security chiefs. “These moves up north . . . are things the [military] and Mossad were pushing for a year,” says Anshel Pfeffer, author of a biography of Netanyahu and journalist at The Economist. “Netanyahu remains someone who usually does not want to take action.”

But others say the successes against Hizbollah have emboldened the 74-year-old as Israel’s leaders weigh one of the war’s most consequential decisions: how to respond to the 180-missile barrage that Iran unleashed at Israel in retaliation for the Beirut and Tehran assassinations. “The more success there has been on the battlefield, the more he has gained confidence,” says Bushinsky. “As we say in Hebrew, when the food comes, the appetite grows.”

Abroad, the multifront campaign has deepened Israel’s isolation. The Gaza offensive has sparked international legal moves against Israel and Netanyahu. His refusal to agree a ceasefire deal in exchange for the release of Israeli hostages still held by Hamas has infuriated the Biden administration.

At home, even as many Israelis believe Netanyahu is paying as much heed to his own political calculations as strategic imperatives, the spiralling conflict has been accompanied by a revival of his political fortunes. Likud once again tops opinion polls. The same surveys still suggest Netanyahu’s coalition would lose an election tomorrow. But given the scale of the October 7 debacle, few expected any recovery. “It’s the mother and father of resurrections,” says Bushinsky.

It is not the first time Netanyahu has surprised his critics. After serving in one of Israel’s elite commando units, Netanyahu became prime minister for the first time in 1996. Ousted in 1999, he bounced back in 2009. Defeated again in 2021, he returned in 2022, outmanoeuvring mainstream parties that shunned him over graft charges — which he denies — by assembling the most hard-right government in Israel’s history.

Over the past year, the coalition has wobbled. Two far-right parties have repeatedly threatened to quit if he makes concessions to the Palestinians. Netanyahu has also feuded with defence minister Yoav Gallant, with whom he is barely on speaking terms, according to people with knowledge of the relationship. Ever the arch-manipulator, he has bolstered his majority by adding the party of Gideon Sa’ar — his ally-turned-enemy-turned ally — to the coalition.

Since Iran’s barrage, hawks have demanded he seize the chance to attack Tehran’s nuclear programme, widely seen as the most serious strategic threat to Israel. The US is pushing for a lesser response, such as hitting Iranian military targets.

“Netanyahu has talked about Iran for years and years . . . and sees it as the biggest threat. And now there is domestic support and from the US for him to do something. That is a big shift in the game,” says Nadav Shtrauchler, a political strategist who has worked with Netanyahu. “It’s not a question of whether he will act, but how.”

james.shotter@ft.com