The Cycle of Middle East Conflict: In War, Only Decisive Victories Bring Peace

Written by Jerry Elman, November 7, 2023

The horrific attack on October 7th, where Hamas perpetrated a massacre that resulted in the deaths of over 1,400 innocent people, is a stark reminder of the historical pattern of animosity towards Jews spanning more than 2,500 years. Generally, when a nation is subjected to such aggression, their inherent right to self-defense and retaliation, particularly when their existence is under threat, is unquestioned.

Reflect on September 11, 2001, when the U.S. was attacked by terrorists who converted commercial planes into weapons, killing 2,996 individuals. The U.S. responded by initiating military action in Afghanistan aimed at the complete annihilation of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Due to Al Qaeda and the Taliban’s tactics of employing civilians as shields, using hospitals for weapon storage and command, and ambulances to transport combatants, the U.S. had to modify its rules of engagement. The enemy’s pursuit of martyrdom made the war incredibly challenging, as they did not value their own lives or those of others. The question then and now is how do you stop and defeat people who place no value on life?

Post-invasion, the U.S. prematurely declared victory in Afghanistan. Over time, however, the Taliban replenished its forces and weaponry, ultimately leading to the prolonged conflict which the U.S. exited after 20 years. Presently, the Taliban have regained control in Afghanistan, with the re-emergence of Al Qaeda and ISIS, despite skepticism about their revival. They will become a threat to the United States again in the future because we allowed them to survive and rebuild.

The post-World War II era brought a belief that wars could end through political means rather than absolute military victories. This shift led to conflicts ending in stalemates, with political agreements that often failed to deliver lasting peace. Wars resume because the adversaries are not decisively defeated, and no formal surrender occurs.

This pattern mirrors Israel’s experience since 1948. Israel agreed to the U.N. partition plan for a two-state solution, but the Arab states rejected it and waged war. Despite Israel gaining more territory, a U.N.-mandated ceasefire ensued. Interestingly, Jordan and Egypt seized the West Bank and Gaza Strip—areas meant for the Palestinian state proposed by the U.N.—with no intentions of creating a Palestinian state but instead aiming to obliterate Israel.

After the ceasefire, Arab nations immediately started rearming and planning future wars against Israel. Conflicts reoccurred in 1956 and 1967, with the latter leading to Israel capturing significant territories, yet each ended with a ceasefire, and the cycle continued.

In the 1973 war, despite Israel’s tactical advantages leading to further advances into Egypt and Syria , another ceasefire resulted in Israel relinquishing territories. After the conflict, Arab nations again vowed further warfare against Israel.

The lasting peace between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan is the exception to these cycles. With the establishment of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the 1970s aiming to destroy Israel via terrorism and the subsequent Oslo Accords in the 1990s, the PLO rejected substantial concessions offered by Israel in 2000, returning to militarization and conflict.

Yasar Arafat founded and led the PLO through various historical junctions that could have led to peace. Instead, he often oscillated between a peacemaker and a militant leader. Arafat’s commitment to peace was perpetually overshadowed by his direct involvement in acts of terrorism and violence. His career was built on exploiting the Palestinian cause for personal gain. His leadership perpetuated a cycle of conflict, leading Palestinians through decades of strife and instability. The Palestinian people were left in poverty, war, and destruction due to Arafat. Ironically much of the world blames Israel for the plight of the Palestinian people, not Arafat.

Contrasting Arafat’s tactics, Hamas emerged as an even more extreme element within the Palestinian political landscape. Under their direction, the pursuit of martyrdom becomes a disturbingly prominent feature, with a radical doctrine that endorses total self-sacrifice and death in the conflict against Israel. In this light, Hamas’s leaders are seen as provoking conflict from the safety of their shelters, leaving the Palestinian populace exposed to the consequences of the hostilities they instigate.

Arafat and Hamas’s actions are pivotal in understanding the complex and often tragic tapestry of Middle Eastern geopolitics, where the lines between terrorism, resistance, and governance are frequently blurred, and the cost is borne by the people caught in the crossfire.

Past wars between Israel and Hamas concluded with ceasefires, leading to temporary halts rather than conclusive victories and permanent peace.

This never-ending cycle is what led to the brutal attack against Israel on October 7th and the subsequent war. Forced political solutions and stalemate lead to worse situations as time goes on.

Wars cannot be fought only to achieve ceasefires and stalemate, as harsh as that sounds. For lasting peace, wars must conclude with clear victories and the formal terms of surrender and peace for the defeated. In this view, Israel, like the U.S. with Al Qaeda, ISIS, and the Taliban, must aim to defeat Hamas decisively. Ceasefires only lead to worse bloodshed and wars with them.

Once Hamas is destroyed decisively, peace terms must be agreed to upfront with Israel, then assisting Palestinians in forming a stable government and aid in rebuilding. This is the only way to produce the conditions needed for peaceful coexistence. As long as terrorist organizations are operative and stalemate endures, lasting peace is unattainable in this ongoing cycle of conflict and war.

In the broader context of the ongoing conflict and the struggle for peace in the Middle East, the fate of Hezbollah will remain a significant concern following any decisive outcome against Hamas. The crux of the matter is whether the destruction of Hamas will serve as a cautionary tale for Hezbollah, influencing it to opt for diplomacy over hostility. My hope lies in the possibility that witnessing the end of Hamas will prompt Hezbollah to choose a path of peace instead of facing a similar obliteration.

World War II underlines the importance of a decisive victory in the quest for lasting peace. If the Allies had pursued a ceasefire with Nazi Germany instead of seeking total victory, the conflict would have dragged on indefinitely. It was a clear, decisive defeat of Germany that ended hostilities. The cycle of war continues unabated, with each cease-fire or armistice merely serving as a brief interlude before the next escalation.

The ultimate point is that wars must be concluded with definitive outcomes; otherwise, the cycle of violence perpetuates, with worsening consequences for all involved.