Let’s construct a game with the following outcomes: win, loss, draw. Team A has only two possible outcomes, either win or draw; Team B also has two outcomes, lose or draw. If enough games are played according to these rules, Team B, who can never win, will eventually lose.
Instead of pressuring Israel for yet another ceasefire, the voices from the West should insist that Hamas unconditionally surrender.
This is precisely the rule of engagement that has governed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since 1948. In military terms, win means “victory,” lose means “defeat,” and draw means “ceasefire.” Israel has been restricted from pursuing complete victory by world pressure to accept a ceasefire. Even when they have scored an unequivocal victory as in 1967, the Palestinians have not accepted defeat. It’s been noted that only in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the victor, Israel, the one who must sue for peace. (READ MORE: In Their Words: The Families of Hamas’ Victims)
When Israel is allowed only a draw or defeat, with enough repetitions, eventual defeat is inevitable. As evidenced in the current battle, the Palestinians with the help of Iran and their proxies, will develop more powerful weapons and expertise. This will increase the chances of moving beyond a draw or ceasefire and they will pursue victory as the only outcome. The assurance that their worst outcome is a ceasefire has emboldened Hamas to launch the brutal and barbaric October 7th terror attack. Given the frequent threats of Hamas and Iran that deny the legitimacy of Israel, their vow to annihilate the “Zionist entity,” and the haunting mantra “From the river to the sea,” when they sense victory no world pressure will reign in their blood lust.
The War of Independence in 1948 ended with a ceasefire and armistice in 1949. In 1956, Israel, Britain, and France were pressured by the United States to withdraw despite military success, giving Egypt victory and control over the Suez Canal. Despite the resounding victory by Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967, the United Nations Security Council called for a ceasefire on June 7. This was immediately accepted by Israel and Jordan, and shortly after by Egypt and Syria. In 1973 Israel was attacked by Egypt and Syria on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year, a surprise attack that nearly brought Israel to destruction. American arms helped Israel to re-establish control, but again the United Nations Security Council, backed by international pressure, reiterated calls for a ceasefire with Resolutions 339 and 340. Israel accepted the ceasefire.
This asymmetric war where one side is allowed only a ceasefire, never victory, is another instance of the double standard that prevails when Israel is involved. Wars of other nations end with the unconditional surrender of the defeated who sues for peace. In the American Civil War, General Lee was given the respect of a military general. He reluctantly appeared before Grant to surrender and accept the terms of peace. If peace is achieved with “malice towards none”, the long-term results can be as auspicious as seen in today’s triumphant South. After WWII the unconditional surrender by Germany and Japan led to their resurgence as national and economic powers. (READ MORE: Achieving Victory in Gaza: Some Questions)
Gaza, many have noted, has the potential to become the Singapore of the Middle East if it changes course and invests the billions provided by Arab and Western nations in economic development rather than underground tunnels. A profound change is needed that replaces the culture of death with the culture of life, that accepts the 75-year-old reality that Israel exists and will endure, and that re-writes the narrative and textbooks that educate its children with a different model of heroism that eschews murdering Jews as the path to heavenly reward.
Regrettably, from a Jewish perspective that prefers compromise over confrontation, the only way to achieve such a change is to speak the language of the Palestinian zeitgeist, which is that compromise is an unacceptable humiliation. As with Germany or Japan, both the ruling political power and the general population must be left with no alternative except defeat and unconditional surrender. The previously endless cycle of attack, limited war, and ceasefire encourages more terror until the next iteration.
If any good emerges from the viciously sadistic torture and murder of so many, it will be this: The world will see in bold relief the goal of Iran and its increasingly empowered proxies is, as repeatedly stated, the death of Israelis, Jews, and ultimately the West (It’s worth noting that in 1979 America suffered a smaller scale but similar hostage crisis at the hands of Iran).
It’s encouraging that America has expressed support for Israel’s right to defend itself. The next critical step is for America to also understand that for Israel to “protect itself,” this time the enemy must be driven to an unconditional surrender. The innocent Gazans that America and Israel want to protect from harm must be ready to accept the terms of defeat so the moral restructuring and economic development of Palestine can begin. (READ MORE: Muslim Women Visit Israel to Show Solidarity Against Hamas)
Reuters News recently reported that there were 15,000 Palestinian casualties and that an impending health crisis could take even more lives. Assuming that this figure is close to the actual number, in other wars this would be the time to hear talk of surrender. Israel has stated that because of the heinous crimes of Hamas terror they must be destroyed and a ceasefire is off the table. Now is the time for the world to support an end of the asymmetric war strategy of ceaseless ceasefires that render Israel vulnerable to existential threat. Instead of pressuring Israel for yet another ceasefire, the voices from the West should insist that Hamas unconditionally surrender. 75 years of ceaseless ceasefires have failed to end the conflict. Giving Israel a new option of victory rather than draw or defeat is the only path to lasting peace.
The writer, who holds a Ph.D., is a psychologist and former assistant professor of psychiatry and psychology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. He has published pioneering scientific articles on positive psychology and coping with stress, as well as social and political commentaries in the Jerusalem Post, Arutz Sheva, Christian Science Monitor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the American Thinker, and others.
