OPINION:
American friends of Israel tend to admire the policies of the Jewish state as heroic and blame foreign governments, especially their own, when Jerusalem makes errors vis-a-vis the Palestinians, notably 1993’s Oslo Accords, 2005’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, the catastrophe on Oct. 7 and the Israeli military’s eight-month failure to defeat Hamas.
I beg to differ. Without defending Washington’s actions, Israelis make their share of mistakes. In particular, their government and security establishment tend to be overly reliant on technology, prone to short-term fixes, and too conciliatory.
On that last point, although Israel enjoys a huge economic and military edge over its Palestinian enemies, Israel’s leaders have, with few exceptions, sought to conciliate it rather than defeat it. The Jewish state tactically deploys violence but strategically seeks to end the conflict through a curious combination of enriching and placating Palestinians. This approach accounts for its current predicament.
Although I am not Israeli, a 55-year witness to the heartbreaking mistakes of America’s only genuine Middle Eastern ally prompted me to develop an alternate paradigm for it, one that replaces the postmodern goal of conciliation with the traditional one of defeat.
As a historian, I understand that conflicts usually end when one side gives up: Think the U.S. Civil War, World War II, the Vietnam War. Applying this universal insight to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict opens up an exciting possibility to resolve the past century’s most intractable and emotive clash: The Palestinians lose, the fighting ends.
To which comes the inevitable retort: “Given the many internal and external restraints on Israel, how could it possibly impose a sense of defeat on West Bankers and Gazans?”
My reply, as explained in detail in a just-published book, “Israel Victory: How Zionists Win Acceptance and Palestinians Get Liberated” (Wicked Son), focuses on the Palestinian center of gravity, meaning (as defined by war theorist Carl von Clausewitz), “the essential source of ideological and moral strength, which, if broken, makes it impossible to continue the war.”
In this case, that center of gravity lies not in the leadership, the militia, the economy, the land or religious sanctities, but in hope: the hope to destroy Israel and replace it with Palestine. Accordingly, Israel’s goal must be to extinguish that hope and replace it with hopelessness.
Achieving this requires two elements: one destructive and one constructive.
Destructive: Israelis and Palestinians jointly revile the ruling Palestinian institutions, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, but before Oct. 7, neither challenged them. Israel preferred the devils it knew, but the Palestinian public lacked the strength to defy them.
Oct. 7 changed the calculus. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and many other of the country’s political, military and intellectual leaders have insistently called for the destruction of Hamas, and that should be the military’s precise goal, unconstrained by the hostages held by Hamas. The Palestinian Authority, which confirmed its moral bankruptcy by endorsing Oct. 7, can be collapsed by Jerusalem simply starving it of funds.
Constructive: Ridded of the foul Hamas and Palestinian Authority, Israel can then rebuild by working with the growing body of Palestinians ready to come to terms with Israel’s existence and seeking to benefit from it. This means first, constructing administrations in Gaza and the West Bank by working directly with moderate Palestinians, something Jerusalem has seldom tried. Together, these longtime enemies can build a decent polity comparable to what is found in Egypt or Jordan.
Second, it means supporting the voices of moderates and amplifying in Arabic the message of Palestinians calling for an end to a century of futile anti-Zionist negativity. Appreciating Israel’s elections, rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, minority rights, orderly political structure, and other benefits, they want to end futile rejectionism in favor of building something positive.
Experiencing the bitter crucible of defeat, ironically, will benefit Palestinians even more than Israelis, allowing them finally to emerge from a long miasma of nihilism. Finally they can develop the polity, economy, society and culture worthy of a skilled, dignified and ambitious people. Think of them as a miniature version of the Germans and Japanese in 1945.
But this will happen only if Israel breaks with its tradition of conciliation and instead seeks victory. Americans should urge this shift, but Israelis must ultimately take the fateful step that breaks with over a century of Zionist history.
• Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum and author of “Israel Victory.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.