OPINION:
A version of this story appeared in the On Background newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive On Background delivered directly to your inbox each Friday.
It is terribly immodest and even arrogant to quote oneself. However, at the risk of being considered immodest and arrogant, I am permitting myself to submit for dissemination an essay that I wrote in 2014 following a Hamas attack on the state of Israel, but regrettably did not publish. I hope that by publishing this essay, word for word, nine years later, it may still have a beneficial impact.
On July 25, 2014, I wrote:
In April 1865, Gen. Robert E. Lee surveyed his army and its capacity to fight the Union armies and he concluded that the Confederacy could not win the Civil War. Further bloodshed was useless, the South would simply not prevail. Lee met with Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox and surrendered — unconditionally. A prominent military leader of the South had come to the recognition that the South had failed in its attempt to secede from the Union and that it could no longer hope to achieve its objective.
Although it would take more than a century, through this surrender, the terrible division that had afflicted the United States since its creation some 89 years earlier could begin to heal.
On Jan. 24, 1943, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill met in Casablanca to discuss their strategy in the war against Nazi Germany. At the conclusion of their meeting, the two leaders declared that their sole goal in the war was the “unconditional surrender” of Germany and its allies. They had determined, based on the events that had led to the war, that negotiating with Hitler could not result in a genuine end to the conflict. Only surrender, without conditions, could achieve their purpose of bringing peace to Europe and the world.
The overwhelming, very disproportionate, force brought to bear against Nazi Germany and its allies achieved this purpose. By using every means and weapon at their disposal, the Allies completely defeated the Germans and initiated the longest period of peace that Europe has ever known.
Since the 18th century, German rulers had dreamed of dominating Europe through the use of military force. Only in 1945, after the German nation had been laid to waste and Germany had unconditionally surrendered, were Germans able to accept the notion that they would never be able to conquer Europe by force of arms.
History suggests that sometimes the very act of surrender is truly important. Not only does surrender mean the laying down of arms, it also means a very public acknowledgment of failure. In turn, an acknowledgment of failure can help to eliminate the root causes of a conflict. Massive destruction and an unconditional surrender followed by complete disarmament (as was the case with Germany in 1945), stands a very good chance of changing a society’s view of itself, as well as of its goals.
Today, the world is watching the third conflict initiated by Hamas against Israel in less than a decade. Clearly, the leadership of Hamas believes that it can in some manner prevail by unleashing violence. Therefore, it is essential that they come to the realization that they will gain nothing by their approach.
In order to achieve that realization, there may very well be only one road, a very old-fashioned and out-of-fashion road — unconditional surrender. Cease-fires suggest a pause and that it will be possible to come back and fight another day. A cease-fire in Gaza will merely be viewed by Hamas as a hiatus in the effort to achieve their ultimate objective (in this case the destruction of Israel and the murder of its Jewish citizens, as openly enunciated in their charter).
The leaders of Hamas will claim some kind of moral victory and simply try to find another way to achieve their destructive objective.
It is laudable that international diplomats, including our own secretary of state, are trying to stop the carnage in Gaza. No one — no one with any sense of morality — can take any pleasure in the suffering of the people of Gaza. However, anyone with a sincere desire to put an end to this repetitive conflict must understand that a cease-fire, merely stopping the fighting without ending the capacity of one or the other of the parties to engage in conflict, is just a postponement. Only an acceptance of the inevitable by the weaker party can end the struggle.
We live in a world of relativism. We hesitate to be certain about anything. Every point of view must have some merit. As a consequence, we are reluctant to think in terms of winning or losing, of victory or surrender. But sometimes being forced, even by violent means, to give up a struggle is the only way to move on. If the Palestinians do not move on, they will merely continue to generate conflict and violence. A complete surrender — with all of its humiliation and pain — may, as it was in Europe in 1945, be the only way of opening the path to generations of peace.
Let neither Israel nor the world community press for a cease-fire in Gaza. Rather, let everyone insist upon a surrender — an unconditional surrender — by Hamas and a surrender as soon as possible. This may very well be the only path to an early end to violence and to long-term peace.
• Gerard Leval is a partner in the Washington office of a national law firm. His book, “Lobbying for Equality: Jacques Godard and the Struggle for Jewish Civil Rights During the French Revolution,” was published by HUC Press in 2022.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.