In Hans Christian Andersen's famous children's story "The Emperor's New Clothes" from 1837, a respected emperor is deceived by two fraudulent tailors. They tell the emperor they have sewn him a luxurious suit while in fact they dress him in nothing. Only one child dares to point at the emperor and cry out "The emperor is naked!" In doing so, the small child tears away the mask of lies that the courtiers were afraid to expose, lest they have to confront the emperor.
This story became famous in Western society as a symbol of criticism. However, the regional reality surpasses the story. After the Iranian axis was weakened in our war, and after Russia was forced to withdraw its forces to the war in Ukraine, the Assad dynasty no longer had a stable support. The tanks, missiles, and divisions didn't help Assad. Even the cruel war crimes committed by the Assad family against the Syrian people did not frighten the rebels. Assad relied on the Alawite minority and a mask of corrupt interests, and therefore, contrary to all expectations of the best intelligence services - when circumstances changed, his rule also collapsed.
The message from the fall of the Assad regime is that a regional minority cannot rule by military force alone. An iron fist is not an alternative to social cohesion and regional alliances. Sometimes even if the king appears strong and armed, the truth is that Assad was naked. Therefore, in light of this chaotic reality, we must ask ourselves where is Israel? Are we, heaven forbid, also a regional Jewish minority relying solely on its military might? Do we also lack strong regional alliances and solid national cohesion?
Unlike the Assad regime, we established a democratic society with an advanced free market. Therefore, we must think critically and ensure we are not blind to our true situation. Only then will we secure the future of our children and grandchildren in Jewish and democratic Israel.
Illustration of The Emperor's New Clothes by Wilhelm Pedersen, 1837
War of Attrition
Israeli society is remarkable. Surveys show our willingness to pay heavy prices for the release of hostages. Time and again, many of us don uniforms, leave our families behind, and enlist for another reserve duty rotation at the front. Northern residents showed supreme courage when they were willing to evacuate their homes for an extended period until the northern front stabilized. As a result, the Iranian axis was severely damaged. However, alongside the successes, we tend to ignore the long-term processes that hinder us.
Since the 1980s, Israel has been in a war of attrition against terrorist organizations and the Iranian axis. This war is different from the major decisive wars we were accustomed to before. In this war of attrition, we cannot conquer territory and defeat the enemy. The Iranian axis has built a new power equation: no matter how hard we hit them, they can always continue to strike us using cheap means and through smaller units to continue wearing us down. Therefore, although during the current war we struck Hezbollah in a series of bold moves beyond all imagination, Hezbollah managed to survive. Over time, it was evident that Hezbollah recovered and managed to coordinate its attacks to inflict heavy casualties on us.
This means that in this war of attrition, spectacular blows do not yield victory - it's a chess game, not a gladiator arena. Terrorist organizations know how to distinguish between actions and results. They assume in advance that Israel might conquer territory, kill many leaders and terrorists, and that we will deploy our powerful air force. But all these are actions. In terms of results, we may still lose. The determining questions are only - which side will find it easier to recover after the war? And which side achieved the political objectives of the war?
Among Israel's successes, three main achievements can be noted: First, although the fall of the Assad regime was not planned, it may sever the land connection between Iran and Lebanon. The Iranians will be forced to rehabilitate Hezbollah only by sea and air. Second, Hezbollah was forced to support a ceasefire separating Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. Third, in exchange for our willingness to withdraw from Lebanon, the US recognized our right to operate there again in the future to defend ourselves if Lebanon and international mechanisms do not prevent threats against us. This concession from the US may have contributed to the fall of the Assad regime. The rebels knew that Israel had international legitimacy to act and Iran would not be able to easily assist the regime. So far, this security formula - whereby we withdraw while reserving the ability to conduct operations in the territory when necessary - has proven itself.
Alongside this, we must sadly acknowledge that the Iranian axis also has seven successes: First, the war objectives as defined by the war cabinet were not achieved. As of now, 100 hostages still languish in tunnels in Gaza and are in mortal danger. Hamas still controls the Gaza Strip, and northern Israel residents are not safe. Second, economically, Israel lost three credit ratings according to Moody's rating agency. Third, the war created three new fault lines in Israeli society. The question of the Haredi draft has been reopened, and 71% of Israelis support a hostage deal even in exchange for ending the war in Gaza, contrary to government policy. Similarly, 51% of Israelis oppose resettlement in the Gaza Strip, while 57% of Netanyahu voters support it. It can also be assumed that most Israeli society is not interested in Israeli sovereignty beyond the Green Line.
Fourth, Israel faces its worst international diplomatic crisis in history. Contrary to long-standing claims that the international community is only interested in interests, during the months of war, weapons export restrictions were imposed on Israel from several countries worldwide because we violated human rights. Moreover, for the first time, the International Court in The Hague issued arrest warrants against the Prime Minister and former Defense Minister, and there is even concern about arrest warrants against soldiers who served in the Gaza Strip. Additionally, for the first time, American soldiers took direct part in Israel's aerial defense battles. The US also had to send an aircraft carrier to the region to protect us. Therefore, if the Trump administration indeed prevents American involvement in the region as it declares, then our situation is expected to worsen tenfold. Fifth, regionally, normalization efforts took a significant setback. Whenever terrorist organizations want, they can ignite violence and destroy them. Sixth, many reports in Israeli media indicate a shortage of tens of thousands of soldiers to carry out missions alongside a 15%-25% decrease in reserve duty attendance due to unbearable burdens. There are also reports of overload in handling tanks and APCs, as well as a quiet embargo leading to shortages of additional ammunition.
Seventh, the main force among the Syrian rebels who ousted Assad believes in an ideology originating from al-Qaeda. From media reports, it appears they managed to take control of a huge weapons arsenal, and this development may also threaten the Jordanian state. Therefore, as of now, the IDF has been instructed to seize a security strip in Syrian territory. This means we have added another front that further erodes the IDF's strength.
In summary, from a comprehensive perspective examining which side will find it easier to recover after the war of attrition, it seems that both we and the Iranian axis will find it very difficult to recover. Both sides lost. This is mutual attrition.
We need alliances. not territory.
From our perspective as Israelis who want to raise our children in this country – we must ask ourselves where did we go wrong? The answer is that the fundamental conception of our political culture is directed at a perception of territory and force deployment. In the Biblical tradition, this approach is tagged as the beginning of defeat: "And you say in your heart, 'My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth'" (Devarim 8:17). If the perception of territory comes at the expense of national cohesion, international stability, stretching the IDF's forces, and human rights values – then our gain comes with loss. Holding territory can be positive only when it serves these goals. Otherwise, we fall apart from within.
One of the most erroneous decisions in managing the war illustrates this mistake. On September 2, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced his policy that Israel would not withdraw from the border axis between the Gaza Strip and Egyptian territory. According to Netanyahu, this border, known as the "Philadelphi Corridor," serves as a central smuggling route for Hamas, and therefore Israel must not leave it. Netanyahu's claim was that if we withdraw from the axis, then the international community would not allow us to return to it. Subsequently, on September 16, our war cabinet decided to expand the war objectives to the northern front. During this time, Nasrallah and Sinwar were eliminated, and Hezbollah suffered severe military defeats.
At press conference: Netanyahu presented arguments for maintaining the Philadelphi Corridor. Photo: GPO.
On the other hand, in the period between Netanyahu's press conference and the ceasefire arrangement with Hezbollah – 134 Israelis and foreign citizens were killed by attacks and fire from terrorist organizations toward Israelis. About 1.5 casualties on average every day on all fronts. This terrible price - paid by those murdered and their bereaved families - cannot be described in words. I emphasize that this blood price may have been unavoidable. It's possible that Hamas and Hezbollah would not have agreed to a ceasefire and return of hostages under any conditions, and it's self-evident that we must ensure the return of northern residents to their homes even at the cost of general escalation in the war. However, the piercing question is – were these goals achieved?!
We could have acted differently. We could have declared our principled willingness to withdraw from Gaza Strip territory if Hamas releases all hostages and Hezbollah withdraws beyond the Litani River. If they had refused this, we could have gone to a military campaign in the north with much stronger internal and international legitimacy. After all, this is exactly the ceasefire outline that the war cabinet eventually approved in Lebanon. So why didn't we do this from the start also in the Gaza Strip?! Why was it important for Netanyahu to declare that he principally refuses to withdraw from the Philadelphi Corridor?!
The answer returns again to the political centrality of holding territory in our Israeli conception at the expense of foundations that are truly important to us. Conquest or withdrawal and separation are territorial perceptions that don't lead to desired results. Therefore, I believe we should adopt a new conception called "Warm peace with Security."
Warm Peace with Security
"Warm peace with Security" is a moral and security perception focusing on internal Israeli unity and equal rights between the Jewish people and Palestinian people. At the basis of the approach, a permanent settlement is proposed that will establish two separate states: Israel and Palestine. Alongside this, both peoples will recognize the national rights of the other side in their territory. Jewish and democratic Israel will recognize the Palestinian minority community in its territory, and Palestine will also recognize a Jewish minority community in its territory. This is the desired shift for us. In light of this, our movement offers detailed solutions to the four core issues: borders and settlements, right of return, security, and the Temple Mount.
Members of our Anahnu movement at the November 29, 2024 seminar. Photo: We Movement.
Generally, this approach aimed at moral reconciliation between Jews and Palestinians encounters three criticisms:
The first criticism argues that this approach is utopian. Many ask themselves whether in the chaotic reality of the Middle East, is it right for us to rely on agreements and regional alliances? The second criticism focuses on the perception gaps between the peoples. On one hand, the Palestinians cannot recognize the equal national rights of Zionism that turned them from a majority to a minority in their country. This contradicts common ideologies in the Palestinian people which cannot accept Zionist rights and the existence of a Jewish state in the Arab and Muslim space. They also cannot recognize our independent right to defend ourselves against the terrorism they operate. On the other hand, Jews will also find it very difficult to recognize the injustices we committed against Palestinians. We are deeply resistant to acknowledging our responsibility for the injustices of the Nakba, discrimination, and occupation, and harm to uninvolved Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Most Jews in Israel also deny Palestinian national rights.
Finally, the third criticism focuses on the long-term to which this strategy is directed. It's clear that any pursuit of warm peace will require educational and economic field activities that will take decades. On the other hand, historical experience has taught us that while the peace process is long and expensive, the terrorism and occupation opposing it are cheap and fast. If so, how will this strategy help?!
In light of this, we must admit that all three of these criticisms are justified. In the asymmetric conditions of the zero-sum game characterizing the conflict, it is impossible to expect that immediately at the beginning of the process both Jews and Palestinians will succeed in creating cooperation and trust between them. This is an impossible reconciliation strategy that many peace organizations are trapped in.
Therefore, the warm peace we propose is based on learning from these criticisms. A basic rule we must adopt is that both peoples must not entrust their fate to the other. The stronger Jewish side will make the first move. We will present an independent vision for reconciliation and mutual amnesty between the peoples. Within this framework, it will be declared that injustice does not justify injustice and that the historic land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River is a shared homeland. We will cease from any symmetry and comparison between the peoples. Terrorism will not justify occupation and occupation will not justify terrorism. We will also take responsibility for the Nakba and discrimination. In parallel, we will demand Palestinians recognize our national rights and our right to defend ourselves against terrorist organizations operating in their name. Practically, we will act to promote educational and economic initiatives that will strive to implement the aforementioned permanent settlement. On the other hand, we will take decisive action - whether through military means or law enforcement measures - against terrorism and Palestinian or Jewish extremism. If or when this requires evacuating some Israeli settlements beyond the Green Line – it will be done.
In this way, both sides will benefit already at the beginning of the process. Our Israeli side will be able to establish a new internal coalition that will connect between center-right and left based on new ideas. The historic Jewish heritage beyond the Green Line will not be tagged as a "problem" of the peace process, but as part of it. We can also stabilize our international situation through a legal call for mutual amnesty between the peoples. At every stage, before and after the agreement, we will maintain the IDF's independent capability to defend Israeli citizens in the territory. That is, although complete reconciliation between the peoples will take many years, already in the immediate timeframe we will be able to stabilize our internal, regional and international situation. Within the chaotic regional reality, striving for warm peace can yield us maximum stability. Our movement has a series of immediate practical proposals for implementing this strategy.
On the other hand, the Palestinian side will gain for the first time Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state, their national rights, and the wrongs done to them. Thus they will feel more secure to join the reconciliation process. Indeed, at first only Palestinian minority groups will join, but eventually the majority of the Palestinian people will embrace this path. At any point in time they choose to join they can do so as equal partners - whether they join immediately or whether they join in decades.
Indeed, we must admit there are many risks in our proposal. But they all already exist now in the news. Meaning both peoples can only benefit from the move. In this way, even when terrorism and occupation are operated against us - it will not deter us. Sadly we must admit that in the foreseeable future we will have to continue fighting terrorism. But this should not be a reason for us to volunteer to dismantle the State of Israel. We must maintain the cohesion of Israeli society, our international alliances, and human rights values. Just as in the last twenty years we have not ceased to carry out arrests against terrorist organizations despite ongoing attacks in our streets, so now we must also add the mutual amnesty process despite these attacks. We must be determined and allow Palestinians interested in peace to muster determination on their side as well and join us as equal partners. This is the only way to save Israel from the fate of an armed and divided minority relying in vain on its military might alone. Let us not be like that king who thinks he is strong while in practice he is naked. Only thus can we stabilize our situation to deal with the Ayatollahs' regime or any other extremist organization in the region. Let us take our fate in our hands.
Comments