Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

Israel has been constrained for months by the golden shackles of American support – a Hobson’s choice of the provision of US weapons conditioned, essentially, on Israel not using those weapons for the purpose of vanquishing its enemy. The pressure is intense, originates in the White House and State Department, and has enlisted Israeli politicians such as Yair Lapid to do America’s bidding. That pressure has also coopted Jewish Democrats who have been quick to turn on Israel under the guise of contempt for Israel’s Prime Minister. Perhaps they are unaware that Israel’s Prime Minister serves because he reflects the views of most of the Israeli public and has a majority in the Knesset. Their contempt is thus for the Israeli voting public – or for Israel itself.

Thus, President Biden first directed Israel not to launch a ground invasion of Gaza and recently has threatened Israel with a variety of sanctions if Israel invades Rafiah, conquers Gaza, and defeats Hamas. Massive pressure, to which Netanyahu has a pattern of succumbing in every way except rhetorically, has led to an interminable delay and possibly undermined a chance for victory. The pressure always includes carrots and sticks and sounds so plausible that leaders are often enticed to act against their own country’s interests in deference to this pressure. This week’s tiptoe incursion into Rafiah will likely lead to Hamas demanding a cease fire, dangling the hostages as bait, hoping to save itself and win the release of thousands of murderers so as to better murder and abduct more Jews in the future. A better negotiating tactic for Israel would be hardball: every hostage released in exchange for a temporary cease fire – and nothing else. We should not exchange innocent citizens wrongly held in violation of international law for terrorist murderers justly held because of their enthusiastic murder of Jews. The alternative for Hamas is their immediate destruction. We should not play their game nor should we negotiate ourselves into a defeat, regardless of American pressure.

Yet, history teaches us that succumbing to American pressure is often unwise and occasionally fatal.

In 1946, Chiang Kai-shek, leader of Nationalist China, began a military campaign to defeat the Communist insurgents, led by Mao Zedong and General Lin Biao. The Communists were situated in mineral-rich Manchuria in the Mainland’s northeast. Within a month, the Communists were routed from southern Manchuria, and prepared to abandon the major city of Harbin, the key to the security of northern Manchuria. They were utterly desperate, but with Chiang’s army poised to enter Harbin, he suddenly stopped. His army never again advanced.

“What explains Chiang’s action? In two words: American pressure” (“What If?” edited by Robert Cowley, pages 379-380). General George C. Marshall, then the US Special Envoy to China having finished his service of Chief of Staff during World War II, coerced Chiang into halting his advance and abandoning this battle. Why? One reason, eerily similar to today, is that Marshall and other American leaders detested Chiang, and did not want him to succeed.

It is more reasonable to suggest that Marshall did not want to provoke a conflict with the Soviet Union which was supplying and supporting the Communists Chinese. Marshall even naively suggested that Chiang form a unity government with the Communists. That never happened, but Chiang unhappily agreed to stop his assault, later calling his failure to pursue this invasion the worst mistake he ever made in dealing with the Communists.

Eventually, the Communists regrouped, rearmed, and began a guerilla campaign against Chiang’s forces. Nationalist China suffered a major defeat in 1948 – that year should sound familiar to us – and by 1949 Chiang and his forces were completely driven off the mainland and established their political center in what today is called the island of Taiwan. By heeding Marshall and American pressure, Chiang forfeited the greatest opportunity he had to defeat Mao and end the Communist insurgency.

By that time, of course, Marshall was gone from office, and even his brief tenure as Secretary of State was over, characterized by a fanatic opposition to an independent Israel which to him also seemed like a reasonable policy. Marshall even threatened to vote against President Truman in the 1948 election – and publicize that he would do so – if Truman recognized Israel. Truman did, Marshall didn’t, and so much for idle threats. Marshall may have had a great Plan, but he was often wrong on global strategy.

The ramifications were profound. Counterfactual history is always tantalizing and other factors could have intervened and produced unforeseeable outcomes. But if the Communists had been driven from China with Mao defeated, there would have been no Korean War; Kim Il Sung was energized by the Communist victory to invade South Korea a year later. There would have been no Vietnam War; absent Communist Chinese support, Ho Chi Minh could never have invaded South Vietnam. Without a Communist China, the Cold War would have had a completely different complexion – and without those wars, American society would not have deteriorated into an angry assortment of warring factions distrustful of their government. And all because of American pressure that thwarted Chiang’s advance into northern Manchuria and the defeat of the Communists.

Where does that leave Israel today? The Americans (the State Department and even for a time Harry Truman) pressured Israel not to declare statehood. Israel did anyway, and Israel still flourishes. The Americans pressured Israel not to launch a preemptive strike in 1967 on the eve of the Six Day War. Israel did anyway and won a great victory. The Americans pressured Israel to withdraw from Sinai (in 1956 and then again in 1979). Israel did and we are paying the price for that today. The Americans pressured Israel not to destroy the Iraqi nuclear reactor. Israel did anyway and in retrospect spared the world a nuclear nightmare. The Americans are now pressuring Israel to acquiesce in the survival of the terrorist entity that committed atrocities against it, and then agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state that would reduce Israel, now roughly the size of New Jersey, to roughly the size of Delaware, Biden’s home state.

The list of American pressure ignored goes on but the point is clear: the United States generally operates according to the perception of its own interests, and that is how it should be. When American and Israel interests converge, it is good for the world. When they don’t, then Israel, like any self-respecting country, should operate in line with its own interests. Sure, American supply of armaments is important but Israel has enough of its own weapons to wage a quick and decisive war, especially without the restrictions hypocritically applied only to the conduct of Israel’s wars and to that of no other country. Bear in mind that the Iron Dome, for example, is a technological marvel, but essentially a defensive system that intercepts the enemy’s rockets and missiles launched against our civilians. That brilliant but insane and should be unacceptable. The appropriate response should be the eradication of those who are firing the rockets and missiles rather than the projectiles themselves. We have for too long accepted this ridiculous situation because of our technological prowess. We should tolerate it no longer, which then renders impotent the American threat to stop replenishing the Iron Dome.

Note that Israel has stayed its military might to protect the not-so-innocent civilians of Gaza, presumably to avoid international recriminations. As should have been anticipated, Israel’s invasion was thus blunted, less effective than it could have been – and the international recriminations have come anyway, fast and false, furious and spurious. The battles to come should prioritize the lives of our soldiers.

The broader problem is that Israel has long been slow in adjusting to shifting alliances. Our diplomacy refuses to acknowledge that Turkey is today an avowed enemy of Israel, and one of the most vehement in the world, simply because Turkey was once an ally. America’s interests are usually aligned with Israel’s but not always, and such should be remembered as well.

Almost twenty-five years after Marshall’s misguided advice to Chiang Kai-shek, the United States finally abandoned Taiwan and recognized Communist China as “China.” Since then, the Americans have tap-danced around their relations with Taiwan – calling it “strategic ambiguity” – and currently leaving Taiwan exposed to the predations of the Communist China. Would the US intervene to save Taiwan? If there was an invasion, there would likely be passionate threats hurled at China along with demands that Taiwan exercise restraint, de-escalate, and rely on diplomacy to ward off (or accept) its demise.

America’s foreign policy does change because the personalities in charge of it change. South Vietnam was cajoled by the US into accepting a flawed treaty that left North Vietnam on its territory, the Shah of Iran was abandoned which led to the takeover of Iran by radical Islam that imperils the world today, and the surrender of Afghanistan to the viciousness of the Taliban is still fresh in our minds. All were American allies – until they weren’t. All accommodated American pressure and all paid the ultimate price for it.

There are other examples as well. Israel would be wise to act in its own interests and destroy Hamas, which at this point, for whatever reason (perhaps electoral, perhaps because of the continued flirtation with Iran, perhaps anti-Jewish animus in certain circles, or perhaps some combination of all three) is not America’s or at least Biden’s interest. In President George W. Bush’s letter to then PM Ariel Sharon (April 14, 2004), and grateful for Sharon’s impending expulsion of Jews and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, Bush wrote: “Israel will retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organizations. The United States will lead efforts, working together with Jordan, Egypt, and others in the international community, to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat that would have to be addressed by any other means.”

With the passage of years, and despite the obvious obtuseness and catastrophic harm of Sharon’s plan, according to the Biden administration, Israel’s “right to defend itself against terrorism” is limited, not retained, and the US is not leading any effort, international or otherwise, to “dismantle terrorist organizations,” especially Hamas which on last October 7, murdered, kidnapped, raped, and wounded thousands of Israelis. The “areas from which Israel” withdrew have posed a threat to Israel since Israel withdrew. It is all words, empty but soothing words.

So much for presidential promises, in fulfillment of the verse in Psalms (146:3): “Do not put your trust in princes,⁠ in a human being, for he has no salvation.” The United States can weather its bad policy choices; it is big country protected by two oceans. It rarely pays any price for its diplomatic follies. That price is paid by its erstwhile allies pressured into acting against their own interests.

We the people, and our leadership, are forewarned.

(First published at Israel365.com and Israelnationalnews.com)

Donald Trump’s interview with Time magazine made headlines for all the wrong reasons. The media typically focused on his criticism of Prime Minister Netanyahu (“I had a bad experience with him”) and his legal woes – and missed the sea change in his thinking on Israel and the Middle East that, if maintained, will reshape the region, its politics and diplomacy, long after his litigation is behind him.

Asked whether he thought the outcome of the war in Gaza “should be a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians,” Trump responded: “Most people thought it was going to be a two-state solution. I’m not sure a two-state solution anymore is gonna work… There was a time when I thought two states could work. Now I think two states is going to be very, very tough. I think it’s going to be much tougher to get. I also think you have fewer people that liked the idea. You had a lot of people that liked the idea four years ago. Today, you have far fewer people that like that idea…Because children grow up and they’re taught to hate Jewish people at a level that nobody thought was possible.”

Lest Trump’s words be obscured behind his trademark awkward syntax, the presumed Republican nominee has demonstrated once again that his instincts in many areas are far more often on target than those of the State Department, world diplomats, and the tendentious journalists who have clung to the two-state illusion for more than two decades. In the process, they have weakened Israel, harmed American interests, and destabilized the region.

Interestingly, Trump’s conclusion – rooted in pragmatism – confirms the policy of the Republican Party that was first adopted in July 2016. Before the convention that nominated Trump, the Republican Party approved a platform that rejected the establishment of a Palestinian state and gave Israel the freedom to negotiate a deal with the Palestinians on its own terms without external pressures. “We oppose any measures intended to impose an agreement or to dictate borders or other terms, and call for the immediate termination of all U.S. funding of any entity that attempts to do so. Our party is proud to stand with Israel now and always.” Of course, defunding any entity that supports the two-state delusion would require the defunding of the State Department and the Biden administration, but such is the purpose of elections.

This is not to shill for either Trump or the Republicans. Almost all Jews would prefer bipartisan support for Israel in the United States. And although many Jews maintain that support for Israel remains bipartisan, the current difference between the parties could not be more glaring.

The Republican Party’s support for Israel is unequivocal and its repudiation of the two-state illusion aligns with the overwhelming majority of Israelis today, chastened and sobered as we were by the Hamas massacre of October 7. Those who persist in talking about two states living side by side are not only rewarding the Arab invaders, marauders, rapists, decapitators, and kidnappers of that awful day; they are also romanticizing a particularly vicious enemy and laying the foundation for future massacres.

By contrast, the Democratic Party has two wings. The radical left supports one state – a state of Palestine that would be built on the ruins of Israel and the extermination of its Jewish population. That is the clear implication of “freedom from the river to the sea” – still another Arab Muslim state in the Middle East and the destruction of the only Jewish one in the entire world. The moderate wing of the Democrats is comprised of those people who continue to support the two-state illusion, which poses an existential threat to the viability of the State of Israel. This support has become standard among Democrats, despite the lack of even a scintilla of evidence that the Arab entity would not seek to destroy Israel or that another partition of the land of Israel is even sustainable. Included in this wing, unfortunately, are many Jewish Democrats.

We can pretend that the parties’ positions are identical or similar. Jews, and liberal Jewish organizations especially, have been doing this for years. But they are not, and on the issue of partitioning the land of Israel into two states, the differences are profound politically, and nothing less than life and death for Israelis. Certainly, this divergence was apparent in 2012, when the Democrat establishment fudged a voice vote to make it seem as if a majority of its delegates supported a plank that called for recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. (The clause had been summarily removed from the Democratic platform.) It fooled those open to being fooled.

On the issue of two states, the discrepancy between Republicans and Democrats could not be more pronounced. This presents a discomfiting challenge for Jews who instinctively vote for the Democrats or an opportunity for them to reconnect to their heritage and their people’s destiny. Evangelical Christians have no such schizophrenia, similar to faithful Jews who believe in the divine promises of the Bible and the prophetic return to the Holy Land. They aim to keep G-d’s land (Keepgodsland.com) the heritage of the Jewish people.

It would be encouraging if Democratic voices emerged that also disavowed the fantasies of “two states for two people.” Donald Trump is nothing if not mercurial but his instincts here are precisely calibrated. Jews should be praising him as this revolutionary shift in his thinking transforms the debate and will reverberate across the region – where even most Arab countries oppose and only pay lip service to a Palestinian state. Ruling out what won’t work, which has been a crutch for the political class for far too long, will engender a rational discussion of what might work – and help preserve the Jewish state in our biblical land.

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

The mischievous machinations of the American government engender some obvious questions: why doesn’t Joe Biden want Israel to win the war with Hamas? Why does Joe Biden want Hamas to survive to rape, torture, rocket, and murder another day? Conversely, why does Joe Biden express unambiguous support for Israel under attack from Iran and even lend American resources to the effort? After all, how can a rational thinker distinguish between Iran, a terrorist nation, and Hezbollah and Hamas, who are the terrorist proxies of Iran, the terrorist nation?

Biden’s conduct towards Israel is best understood as equivocal. His words – especially in the wake of the October 7 Hamas massacre – were encouraging and his ongoing provision of armaments to Israel is significant and welcome. Biden’s assistance was first accompanied by advice, which has now mutated into diktats as if Israel is an American vassal. No other American ally has received such treatment. The aid has become the equivalent of golden shackles, restraining Israel from pursuing our interests and securing our land and people. That Biden has now essentially embedded the American military with Israel’s in the conflict with Iran – at least in the realm of planning – should also be perceived as a mixed blessing. Biden has been most unhelpful while condemning Israel’s military tactics and the conduct of the war with Hamas. This latter indictment is deeply troubling, even offensive, because Biden offers no alternative strategy (except defeat), does not acknowledge the extreme measures that Israel has taken to protect not-so-innocent civilian life (at the price of our own soldiers’ lives and well-being), and completely discounts the far greater loss of civilian life wrought by the United States military in its recent wars, including on Biden’s own watch.

The United States incinerated (there is no better word) hundreds of thousands of Japanese and German civilians during World War II. As the esteemed Senator Tom Cotton pointed out last week, the United States also refused to provide humanitarian aid to Japanese and German civilians during World War II. The horrors! Not helping your enemy during wartime! And yet Biden expects this from Israel. Why?

Some will conclude that Joe Biden is just another run-of-the-mill Jew hater but I find that explanation facile, superficial, and unprovable. We never know what lurks in a person’s heart but it is just too convenient, although it is entirely plausible that he has Jew haters on his staff who are influencing him. Nevertheless, I think the answer lies elsewhere, perhaps in a more subtle form of bigotry.

I thought of this while reading Dara Horn’s memoir, provocatively titled “People Love Dead Jews” (2021). The Holocaust provoked in many circles, although of course not universal, sympathy for Jews, soul-searching about the depth of evil to which human beings can sink, and anguished cries of “never again,” all of which in retrospect had little effect on the existence of Jew hatred and Jew haters. But the world soon lost interest in dead Jews and only encountered the Holocaust or other predations with one objective in mind. She laments: “Dead Jews are supposed to teach us about the beauty of the world and the wonders of redemption – otherwise, what was the point of killing them in the first place?” Even Holocaust novels are supposed to be uplifting.

In other words, dead Jews provide a “service” to mankind. There is something pure and untainted about mourning the victims of the Arab massacre of October 7. Those victims died a “perfect” death, victims of unadulterated evil, of the bestial element of the human form. To this way of thinking, their pristine death is marred by the messiness and unpleasantness of self-defense, of armies and infantries, of bombing and destruction. Certainly, Jews have the right of self-defense, as long as it is not used too forcefully, seriously, and aggressively, and as long as that right does not cause collateral damage or unnecessary casualties.

It goes without saying that this approach to self-defense or even waging war against genocidal enemies is only applied to Jews and the Jewish state. No other country in the world, today and throughout history, is expected to refrain from defeating an enemy who invades its territory, murders, and abuses its citizens, and still holds scores of them hostage. No other country in the world would even entertain returning to the aggressor the territory from which it unleashes its repeated aggressions – and to do it repeatedly. Israel is not only expected to return Gaza to its enemy – again – but will be considered by the world the aggressor if it – wisely – refuses to do so this time.

There was something immaculate about Biden’s initial response to the massacre – the quick visit, the sympathy, the outrage, the determination to fight evil. And then Israel ruined that idyllic scene by going to war and inflicting tremendous harm on its enemy, with the war still in progress. In other words, the “live Jews” in their intemperate desire to remain alive spoiled the good feelings much of the world had in grieving over the dead Jews.

Yet even that answer seems too trite to explain Biden’s hostility towards Israel’s government, its prime minister and even its people. After all, Hamas, Iran, and radical Islam are enemies of America as they are of Israel. Certainly, there is some truth to the political calculus and Biden’s pandering for Arab votes. (It should be humiliating to American Jews that Biden, now openly hostile to Israel, nevertheless takes their votes for granted. That might be both his soft contempt for liberal American Jews as well as an accurate assessment of where are their hearts, heads, wallets, and ballots.) But I think the answer is deeper and simpler than just this election.

In January 1987, then Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger filed a sentencing memorandum with the federal court that would shortly sentence Jonathan Pollard to life in prison (in violation of the spirit of the plea bargain which he entered). Weinberger asserted that Pollard had “substantially harmed” the United States and demanded “severe punishment.” How Pollard did that was left a bit vague, and the memorandum released to the public is redacted almost beyond the point of legibility. What does emerge is that the American view of its alliance with Israel is different from what Jews and Israelis ordinarily assume. Weinberger wrote (39-40): “I cannot overemphasize that the United States strives hard to promote peace and stability in the Middle East. In doing so, it is not unusual that Israel and the US find themselves with differing approaches and perspectives.”

To give one example that was not redacted, Pollard provided Israel with information about the location of PLO headquarters in Tunisia that facilitated an Israeli Air Force strike on October 1, 1985. That raid destroyed the base and eliminated dozens of terrorists. Weinberger deemed that attack to be contrary to US interests because Tunisia had graciously given a home to the PLO after that murderous terrorist group was banished from Lebanon. As such, Weinberger perceived Tunisia as “a power friendly to the United States” and the attack on the PLO headquarters therefore “to the detriment of the United States (32-33). Lost on Weinberger, apparently, was that the “humanitarian assistance” provided by Tunisia was to a terrorist group sworn to destroy Israel and attack any Jew across the world. How can this be? Why would the United States want the PLO to survive?

Here we come to the crux of the problem, and we feel its repercussions today with the Biden about-face regarding Israel. For sure, the United States sees Israel as an ally that can serve American interests in the region. Thus, the United States wants an Israel that is strong – but not too strong. An Israel that is “too strong” is less susceptible to American pressure. An Israel that is “too strong” – e.g., an Israel that has defeated Hamas, driven it from Gaza, and remains in control of the Gaza Strip – is not an Israel that can be bullied into indulging the two-state delusion. From this perspective, an Israel that is too strong, that completely liquidates its enemy, which puts the fear of G-d into any future potential foe, and that deters any foe from attacking – that Israel is too powerful for America’s perception of its interests in the Middle East.

As such, an Israel in possession of Judea and Samaria is construed by the United States as “too strong” and also too reluctant to surrender it to its enemy. That is why Biden will wax indignant over the non-existent “settler violence” and not condemn the murder of Jews who live there, as we have just experienced again, and for many years already. To Biden, Jews have no right to live in Judea (of all places) and thus are fair targets. Jews in Judea and Samaria strengthen Israel too much from an American perspective; whatever can be done to weaken Israel’s presence there, to this way of thinking, strengthens the United States

Now we are privy to the flip side of that equation. Ironically, the US wants Hamas, Iran’s proxy, to survive, while simultaneously the US supports Israeli actions against Iran. Without a strong Israel to counterbalance Iran, Israel would cease to be a useful American ally, would never be able to align itself with neighboring Arab countries, and would even less inclined to subjugate itself to American interests.

Those American interests depend on Israel being pliable, dependent, deferential, and accommodating. The United States that saw value in the PLO’s survival despite the PLO’s murder and kidnapping of American citizens now sees value in Hamas’ survival despite Hamas’ murder and kidnapping of American citizens. From this perspective, a victorious Israel does not serve American interests, either in promoting the two-state delusion or in getting rid of the reviled Netanyahu. For a victorious Israel will emerge from the catastrophe of October 7 stronger, wiser, finally freed of the Oslo and Gaza Expulsion illusions, and more confident in our future.

Accordingly, Biden has embarked on a campaign to delay, dissuade, and then preclude any further invasion of Gaza and any complete victory, accompanied by persistent threats of the dire consequences that will befall Israel if it does not heed these American warnings. At the same time, Biden has committed to helping Israel defend itself against Iran (result: Israel’s viability) while ruling out any American participation in “offensive” actions against Iran (result: no victory and continued proxy conflict). If true, there is at least a certain strained coherence to this policy, which nevertheless should not bind Israel at all.

We should ignore those warnings, certainly for our own welfare, political interests, and survivability in this turbulent region but for another reason as well. Golda Meir once said that “no people in the world knows collective eulogies as well as the Jews do. But we have no intention of going down in order that some should speak well of us.” To be sure, there is a public relations benefit in being victims of Iranian aggression (as there are benefits in the US, the British, the French, and others being perceived by Iran as allied with Israel, since Israel is then not seen as isolated and abandoned) but those benefits are specious and short-lived. The days should be long gone in which the Jewish people bask in the sympathy of the world as we bury Jewish victims of wanton evil. We too love “dead Jews” but we love living ones as well, Jews of faith, commitment, tenacity, and pride. We should pay less attention to those who grieve with us than to those who want to strengthen us so that we do not have to continue grieving.

Pesach celebrates our birth as a nation under G-d, the G-d who liberated us from the suffocating bondage of Egypt, gave us His Torah as our constitution, and His land of Israel as our homeland. Those who do not yet realize that will do so in the near future. When? Perhaps shortly after all of Israel recognizes these truths and lives accordingly. Happy Pesach to all!

(My “Road to Redemption” – all about Pesach – is available at fine stores and from Kodesh Press. Enjoy!)

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

For most of history, nations went to war, frequently and usually at the caprice of one man, but never without a strategy for victory. It was clear what victory entailed: conquest of the enemy’s territory and subjugation of its population. In ancient times defeat was often accompanied by the coerced renunciation of gods of the defeated enemy and its embrace of the victor’s culture. In more modern wars, the objective of World War II was the “unconditional surrender” of the Axis forces, Germany, Italy, and Japan. Many Allied soldiers died, and far more enemy civilians were ruthlessly killed, in order to achieve that goal of “unconditional surrender” rather than accept various offers of cease fires that would have left the Nazi regime in place and Japan’s emperor as ultimate authority.

Israel has never enjoyed such victories, firstly because its strategic goals have been more limited – and usually focused on survival. The War of Independence was successful because nascent Israel repelled numerous Arab invaders, retained most of the territory granted it under the UN’s Partition Resolution and even expanded beyond it. The Six Day War was arguably an unambiguous victory as well, given that another Arab invasion was successfully resisted, the biblical homeland of Israel was liberated, the Arab nations that invaded were sufficiently cowed at least for a few years – but mainly because Israel had no designs on Egyptian, Syrian, or Jordanian territory outside the boundaries of Israel. The notion of “unconditional surrender” had no relevance, as Israel was content to allow all Arab countries to exist as long as they allowed us to exist.

Wars that do not have the goal of “unconditional surrender” are almost by definition “limited” wars, and all subsequent conflicts have been such limited wars. Enemies attack, we defend. Enemies encroach on our land and commit acts of terror, we respond. Enemies fire rockets and missiles at our cities and we “mow the lawn,” deflate their military capabilities, and wait for the next round. We play this macabre game and never win.

There is a second reason why victory in any form eludes us. It is because the “international community,” which includes the United States, the United Nations, and most countries across the world, impose cease fires on Israel whenever victory is close – not even the success of “unconditional surrender” but even to save our enemies and allow them to fight another day. This is unprecedented, and uniquely applied to Jews.

Thus, the Yom Kippur War was halted with Israel on the march to Damascus, with a stronghold in Egypt west of the Suez Canal, and with the Egyptian Third Army surrounded in Sinai. Israel, under pressure, withdrew from Egypt and Syria, allowed the Third Army to escape, and wound up retreating from Sinai. Israel abandoned its positions in Egypt, while Egypt was not forced to vacate its captured land in Sinai. This was not just a stunning diplomatic defeat; it also enabled Egypt to claim victory in the war, which otherwise would have abruptly ended in a colossal failure.

Similarly, the various incursions into Lebanon from the 1970’s through 2008, always ended with cease fires that left the PLO intact, Arafat still functioning, terror just moments away from recurring, and Hezbollah ascendant and gloating. The Ehud Barak-led flight from Lebanon in 2000 catapulted Hezbollah to dominance in Lebanon; Barak’s brazenness in remaining in the public eye, aggressively and abusively, his craving to be taken seriously as a commentator and social agitator, are unusually impertinent illustrations of chutzpah. The Olmert-Halutz catastrophic handling of the 2008 Lebanon War – including the unconscionable deaths of Jewish soldiers fighting for territory that would be abandoned the very next day as part of the cease fire – would be disqualifications for either person to be taken seriously but for the utter shamelessness that today pervades public life.

Israel’s historical handling of Gaza has been just as ineffective. For decades, there was never any intention to prevail, to subdue the enemy, and to conquer its territory. All the skirmishes, culminating in the current war, have ended inconclusively, with forced ceasefires. The obvious consequences of this policy are before our eyes: Gaza and Lebanon are powder kegs waiting to explode – and Israel is on the verge of succumbing yet again to a global demand for a cease fire that will yet again save its enemies. 

How does one lose a war? This is how:

• A nation states and restates its military objectives – such as defeat of Hamas and its liquidation as a military and political force – and then gradually abandons them under pressure.
• A nation makes bold pronouncements – “no food or fuel in Gaza until the hostages are release” or “no aid through Ashdod or Erez” – and then under pressure allows food and fuel to resupply our enemies, and then accepts it as its responsibility to resupply its enemy.  
• A nation can lose when on its own accord it halts the battle when it has momentum and then informs its enemy in advance where it is next attacking, which gives the enemy time to regroup, rebuild, replenish, and re-strategize.
• A nation can lose when it suddenly adopts the bizarre notion that the fate of enemy civilians is the “top priority” in war – and especially when such risible ideas emanate from diplomats who care not a whit about Israeli civilians in captivity, Israeli civilians who were brutalized in their homes, and Israeli civilians who have spent months dispossessed of their homes.
• A nation allows another country with similar but not identical interests (like the United States) to micromanage the war in terms of goals, tactics, location, timing, and weaponry.
• A nation worries more about the welfare of enemy civilians than about the lives of its own soldiers.
• A nation, shocked by the appalling invasion, murder, abuse, kidnapping, and humiliation of its citizens, allows its righteous anger to dissipate, and instead begins to listen to intellectuals and novelists about how a cease fire will improve its international image.
• A nation’s media gives prominence to those voices that insist that “total victory” is impossible.
• A nation allows the defeated hostile population to remain, which enables them to prepare an insurgency campaign that will cost the lives of its soldiers and sap the spirit and will of the people.
• A nation allows disgruntled supporters of opposition parties to riot, protest, threaten, and intimidate, which encourages the enemy to believe that Israel’s society is at war with itself, collapsing from within, and cannot possibly prevail in this conflict.

And this is what defeat looks like:

• Six months after the start of the war, there are still enemy rockets and missiles falling on Ashkelon, the communities around Gaza, and in the north.
• Tens of thousands of Israelis cannot return to their homes.
• A “cease fire,” which leaves Hamas in power, a return to the status quo ante, and preparation for the next wave of missile attacks, terrorism, and response.
• The release of terrorist murderers in return for freedom for innocent hostages, which only precipitates the next round of kidnappings – for which the enemy laughs at us and pays no price.
• Israel, despite its efforts to avoid collateral damage to enemy civilians, is becoming a world pariah, whose elected government is reviled and whose internal politics are considered appropriate for world intrusion, intervention, and meddling.
• The enemies who attacked us have the world’s sympathy, and we are the world’s villain.
• The enemy leaders gloat at their successes and are considered worthy interlocutors by diplomats and other hypocrites.

I still remember when Israel was the envy of the world because of our steadfast claim that “Israel never negotiates with terrorists” and surrenders to their blackmail. Wow, that was a long time ago, for now most of what we do diplomatically is surrender to terrorists and their blackmail.

Victory is going to require more than slogans that “together we will win.” The anarchists who have been allowed to take over our streets and highways in the last year in violation of the law, and who have resumed their violent demonstrations, would rather see Israel defeated or stalemated, and certainly if a victory helps the Prime Minister remain in office.

It is time we realize what victory does look like and try to achieve it. The world hates us anyway, will not have greater love for us if a cease fire is imposed tomorrow, and, in any event, has more respect for winners than for losers. It is not too late to achieve victory but our goals must be clear. The cardinal sin was succumbing to the obsession with the welfare of the enemy civilians – yes, those who supported, participated in, and rejoiced over the rapes, murders, and abductions of October 7. Pursuant to (the farce known as) international law, the Gazan civilians had a legal right to “safe passage” out of a war zone. They were denied that right, not only by Egypt but also by the world community that sees Gazans as an indispensable entity for the continued war against Israel.

We should be advocating for that right to free passage – and doing it in every television interview and every diplomatic exchange. We should prioritize the release of our hostages and tie it directly to the provision of humanitarian aid. We should reject with contempt the hypocrisy of nations who wage war, kill civilians, and see no need to apologize for it (see United States, Kabul, August 28, 2021, 10 civilians killed including 7 children, with denials that continued for weeks, and with a Biden apology to the world yet to be offered).

And then we should finish the job. Victory entails full control over the conquered territory which can never again be used as a launching pad for terror against Israel, an enemy population that leaves because it wants to leave, sees no future for itself in that land, or is encouraged to leave because its opposition to the Jewish national idea is implacable.

We need to remind ourselves of the fundamentals of Jewish destiny that should determine our statecraft. We have returned to the land that G-d granted our forefathers after we forfeited it due to our misconduct. Our generation was blessed to be the beneficiaries of the prophecy of ultimate return. For thousands of years until today, we have been accused by our enemies of being “robbers,” stealing other nations’ land (Rashi, Breisheet 1:1). That has not changed, and we should not expect it to change anytime soon; but it also requires us not to internalize that false indictment and pretend there is some way we can persuasively defend against it. That charge is built into the history of the world and of the Jewish people, a ubiquitous reminder that we must be worthy of this land, permeate it with holiness, sanctify it with mitzvot, and defend it for the honor of G-d and two millennia of Jews who could not defend themselves and suffered the predations of the precursors of all our enemies today.

Even in these difficult and perilous times, we should count our blessings, among which are the knowledge we have of how wars are lost – but also how wars are won, and how victory in this conflict will have positive ramifications in many spheres, and for years to come.