I’m a natural pessimist. As a little kid, I never thought the tortoise would beat the hare, even after hearing the book for the umpteenth time.
When it comes to Israel, the opposite is true. Usually. As has been proven time and time again, from 1948 to 1967 to 1973, the optimism that the “little country that could” will prevail is part of our national psyche. We’ll win because we have to, the cliché that proves the truth goes. The alternative is extinction.
This issue is about the “day after” the Gaza war, and most of what you’re reading is written under the assumption that when the war ends, it will be on Israel’s terms, Hamas will be on life support, and the hostages who haven’t been killed will be released and return home.
But what if “the day after” doesn’t play out exactly like that? It wouldn’t be pessimism to suggest a scenario that Israel would “lose” – that would be lunacy. But in the case of the Gaza war, the final outcome may end up being much more subjective than in the country’s previous watershed moments.
What does it even mean to win in Gaza?
What is “victory,” anyway? Does it mean Hamas no longer in control of Gaza, the return of all the hostages being held, the “reoccupation” of Gaza by Israel, the establishment of a Palestinian Authority-led Gaza government? Or, the worst-case scenario, a withdrawal from Gaza by the IDF, with Hamas still clinging to control and still holding most or all of the hostages, but with an internationally monitored “agreement” in place that ceased hostilities?
Those are all plausible scenarios for “the day after,” some of which would certainly mute the victory claim but seem more realistic than an all-out vanquishing of Hamas.
The expectations haven’t been helped by the repeated brazen declarations, since the war began, by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Last Saturday night he cautioned that in order to achieve “absolute victory,” the war will continue for “many more months.”
“My policy is clear: We are continuing to fight until the goals of the war have been achieved, especially the elimination of Hamas and the release of all our hostages. We are not relenting even for a moment in our efforts to bring our hostages back home, even at this very moment. We will ensure that Gaza no longer constitutes a threat to Israel, that there will be no element in it that finances terrorism, educates its children for terrorism, and pays the families of terrorists,” he said.
“We have additional important missions: to restore security in both the South and the North; to restore prosperity to the kibbutzim, moshavim, and cities that have been attacked; and to return the residents to their homes.”
That’s a tall order to fill, especially when there’s a multipronged campaign against that plan being waged. On one side is the international community (led by the useless United Nations) demanding an immediate ceasefire without an Israeli victory, with the US for now playing the Dutch boy plugging the dike of public opinion.
Pushing on the other side is the domestic movement of once anti-judicial reformers who have joined forces with families of the hostages, to call for an Israeli capitulation to Hamas in exchange for the hostages, as well as the usual menu of calling for elections and Netanyahu’s resignation.
There are even those on the far Left who promote the conspiracy theory that Netanyahu and the top IDF brass are content to let the war drag on for as long as possible, to push off the inevitable state commission of inquiry and their subsequent dismissal over their roles in not preventing October 7.
You can’t outright deny such outlandish claims when someone so power-hungry as Netanyahu is at the helm. But regardless of whether the war is a ploy to keep Bibi in office and out of jail or a determined effort to vanquish Hamas, the pressure for an end to the war before that decisive victory is growing with every passing day of mounting civilian casualties in Gaza and a painful tally of fallen soldiers announced in a dreaded ritual by the radio version of the Grim Reaper every morning.
THE PESSIMIST in me holds my breath as I listen for the names and see if I have any personal connection. Of course, it doesn’t matter because even if I never heard of Efraim Yachman or Yaron Chitiz – two soldiers killed by Hamas in Gaza – their loss is like a death in the family.
So, no, “the day after” doesn’t necessarily mean absolute victory; the reality may be much murkier – a gray zone that nobody is happy about, but that all sides will have to live with.
The lesson of the Gaza war may be that absolute victory is no longer possible like it was in 1967. In today’s Middle East, our opponents are too formidable and the constraints too complex in a geopolitical sense to allow such a concept to take hold.
Unfortunately, for Israel “the day after” in Gaza means the beginning of the counting of days in the north. Once the IDF can turn part of its vision from the south, it will be forced to deal with Lebanon as the next battleground in the ongoing war for Israel’s security. For that, there’s never a “day after.”
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need a sign of hope. I’m going to reread The Tortoise and the Hare.