These past few weeks, replete with out-of-the-box achievements and counter-conventional initiatives, have opened up new ways of conceiving what Israel can and should be aiming to achieve in the multifront war that has been thrust upon it.
For most of the past year, Israel has had to contend with defeatism, and “keep a lid on everything-ism.” It has been told by the Americans that they support its right to defend itself (What nation does not have the right to defend itself?), but there is clearly no interest in Israel’s winning.
Instead, we are cautioned about escalations (a concern that is solely aimed at us, never our enemies), proportionality and a hypocritical obsession with “innocents” that belies the historical experience of all other nations at war.
Israel has been urged to accept ceasefires, which would be tantamount to admissions of defeat, all in the interests of electoral politics in the US, or Muslim pandering in the UK and France.
We have seen the politicization of the hostage situation into a thinly veiled domestic campaign to overthrow the government based on its unwillingness to accept a hostage deal “at any price.”
In short, the prosecution of the war has been akin to running through a minefield.
The sentiments and postures of our allies paid scant attention to, or actively opposed, military success and progress on the ground.
Such successes were impediments to diplomatic solutions, and diplomatic solutions would have meant that the sacrifices of our soldiers were basically for naught.
To the great credit of our Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, these siren songs did not throw him onto the rocks of an easy out.
What Israel cannot tolerate
While he was, of course, accused of acting solely for his own narrow political interests, Netanyahu has understood that Israel cannot tolerate an outcome that leaves it vulnerable to continual attack in the not too distant future.
More than that, Netanyahu has understood that Israel can and indeed must win. In other words, Israel can show the naysayers that their fears were overblown, their assumptions unfounded, and their very conception of how the region could be configured was flat out wrong.
Netanyahu’s consistently held mindset was that of victory, a powerful word replete with many facets and connotations.
The idea, the goal of victory has been a consistent thread in the geopolitical thinking of many on the Israeli Right for several years.
This mindset has been inspired by the writings of historian Daniel Pipes, who has consistently said that Israel and the region will only know peace when Israel has achieved victory.
Pipes has defined such a victory as when Israel’s enemies have expended their warehouse of military and ideological weapons and have come to realize that they have lost.
Nations or movements that do not see themselves as having been defeated have little or no incentive to stop fighting. Defeated nations are amenable – by virtue of having no choice – to agreements or to new constructs.
The only choice Israel has
Israel has no choice, therefore, but to pursue the path of victory, as the alternative is only continuing warfare.
THE TREATIES with Egypt and Jordan are paradigmatic examples of how the realization by Israel’s adversaries that, not only could they not defeat us, but also that their dreams of conquest had been defeated, led to peace treaties.
Yes, these have been “cold” peace arrangements, but we have not militarily fought with either of these countries in decades.
Working with Im Tirtzu, Pipes’s Middle East Forum exhorted Knesset members and government ministers to adopt a victory mindset through the Israel Victory Project.
What was then an aspiration has emerged as Israel’s governing strategy in the current war. The past three weeks have given the idea of Israeli victory unprecedented credibility.
We had already seen that Hamas had been militarily dismembered. To our great surprise, we now have seen Hezbollah, previously seen as a formidable juggernaut, as decapitated, confused, and contained.
And all of this has helped us reconceive Iran as more of a paper tiger than we had dared to imagine. Or, if not made of paper, then at least a tiger capable of being tamed. In short, focusing on victory has also lifted our national spirits and has given us renewed optimism about the future.
What form would victory assume? Of course, it depends on in which theater of operations we are victorious in. In Gaza, victory means the end of Hamas as its governing entity.
Contrary to the double standard criticisms of Israel for not having a defined vision for the “day after,” a victory mindset knows enough to know that the precise details cannot be known in advance.
All that can be known is that the defeated party will seek to reach an agreement, the terms of which will be more self-apparent at that future time rather than now.
Victory in Lebanon is not likely to include the dismantling of Hezbollah, but must certainly focus on insulating Israel’s northern residents from future attacks. This would entail a neutering of Hezbollah, a victory in and of itself.
But the real prize of course is Iran. The oft-announced goal is to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. In the victory construct, what needs to happen for Iran itself to come to that conclusion? Does this mean that nuclear facilities have to be destroyed? Must we be working towards regime change?
Whatever it is, the goal must be to bring Iran to the point where it no longer believes that a nuclear weapon would be in its national interest.
Critics can say that these goals are merely wishes.
Fair enough, but they provide frameworks for practical actions all designed to get to optimal outcomes.
Victory is no longer just an aspiration; it is now a strategic outlook. With all the pressures on it, Israeli leadership is increasingly seeing victory as the only direction, the only outcome that has the chance of providing enduring peace, for Israel and for the larger region.
On to victory!
The writer is the chairman of the board of Im Tirtzu and a director of the Israel Independence Fund.