In the aftermath of trauma, vengeance is a primal imperative. But the ancients were wise when they coined the phrase Vengeance is a dish best served cold.
On 7 October the world reacted with shock and sympathy. Yet by reacting so disproportionately Israel has squandered not only that sympathy, it has squandered most of the moral authority it had painstakingly cultivated over the course of its history — while yet failing to exact vengeance on the true perpetrators.
The equation is stark: When you spare the true authors, while slaughtering the innocent, you inevitably forge a new and embittered generation, one that will strike back when it is able.
And if you also cause your principal benefactor to question the wisdom of continued support, you are going to put your security goal at risk.
From its inception Israel has pursued a ‘hard’ peace, relying on disproportionate response to deter enemy states. But this doctrine has left underlying grievances unresolved, and the doctrine’s bankruptcy is now laid bare:
- Attempts to “reestablish deterrence” will deter only the overt actions of state actors, not the constant drip drip drip of paramilitary forces that endanger Israelis and spread fear and anxiety.
- Israel was already experiencing a dramatic increase in out-migration before 7 October. Many of these emigrants take skills and capital that are core to the Israeli startup ecology — as well as their income tax receipts. If this trend accelerates the cumulative effect will be to erode the ability of the state to maintain services. Eventually it could result in a fiscal crisis, leading to more out-migration and more crisis.
- Israel’s war in Gaza has put its peace with Jordan and Egypt at risk. Even if they don’t mobilize against Israel, they could quietly allow irregular forces to operate freely. This would triple Israel’s front line. Maintaining an active force posture would be geometrically more expensive. A constant mobilization of reserves to maintain elevated operations would sap the Israeli workforce and economy, cause business closures, increase dependence on outside aid, deepen the fiscal crisis, and drive more emigration.
- The gap between the capabilities of conventional and paramilitary forces is narrowing every year. If paramilitaries begin to wield modern man-portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, Israel’s traditional advantage may largely disappear.
- Perceptions of Israel are shifting within the US foreign policy establishment. Once seen as an asset Israel is now viewed by some as a strategic liability. If Israel comes to be perceived as a threat to vital US interests it will be a matter of only a few years at most before Israel is on its own.
- Israel’s use of nuclear weapons in a dire scenario would only make its death rattle last a few more years.
This vicious cycle will only get worse with time. Israel’s entire approach to security must change fundamentally if this vicious cycle is to be reversed.
If the old security paradigm of security through suppression, of “maintaining deterrence”, has reached its limit, what can replace it?
Changing the paradigm: Security through peace
Wise leaders recognize that securing peace requires more than tactical military victories. It requires addressing the grievances of the defeated, or be forever locked into perpetual cycles of rebellion and repression.
Given different circumstances Palestinians would not hate Israelis and Jews. Instead, they would seek what most Israeli Jews desire — to live peacefully, pursue personal aspirations, build families, and savor life. Their grievances stem from the circumstances they find themselves in — a situation largely shaped by Israel.
Resolving grievances was the road not taken, and that has made all the difference. Israel now must grapple with the core question: how to resolve them.
The practical question is, how to create a state in which Palestinians can achieve their visions of self-determination while coexisting peacefully with Israel? How to make Palestinians reasonably whole, satisfied, and resilient after enduring 75 years of displacement, humiliation, lost opportunities, and physical and emotional trauma?
This challenge is wickedly complex. To garner buy-in from Palestinians, Israelis, and their supporters, a plan to achieve these goals must demonstrate a high probability of success. We must meticulously design a blueprint, replete with details, to assess its viability.
It must ensure security for both parties, foster progress and prosperity, establish effective institutions to carry out legitimate governmental functions and reconstruction efforts, and incorporate mechanisms to prevent corruption.
Gaza 2050: A Plan for Peace, Prosperity, and State Building, presents a comprehensive framework. The central premise is that a prosperous Palestine will be inherently peaceful. It envisions Gaza as the commercial and financial hub of the Palestinian state and aims to create an “Arab Barcelona” on the Eastern Mediterranean. Rebuilding will produce full employment, collective commitment to a common enterprise, a business-friendly environment, individual freedom and the promise of individual self-actualization — and the dramatic reduction in the perceived need to engage in violent rebellion.
The plan is designed to resonate with all stakeholders, including thoughtful people in Israel. It represents a once-in-a-century opportunity — one that addresses core Israeli concerns through practical proposals rather than mere idealistic notions. Notably, the plan includes a robust and enforceable security roadmap, safeguarding the interests of both Israel and Palestine. Hamas would have to agree to release its hostages, demobilize its troops, securely warehouse its arms, clearly recognize Israel’s right to exist, and cease threatening activities — which they have stated they would do — in exchange for the promise of a Palestinian state. The plan provides metrics and milestones for progress while remaining vigilant and fostering increased confidence.
Israeli confidence in the plan’s realism is crucial. Israelis must be assured that the sponsors will not waver with their political support and financing. And they must realize that they will suffer long-term if the opportunity is missed. If these conditions are met Israel will be able to honor its own long-term self-interest and withdraw, allowing a peacekeeping force to take over and responsible reconstruction to begin.
Most peace proposals are succinct, not much more than an outline, leaving the intricate details for future negotiations among diplomats. Because public enthusiasm for the plan’s vision is important, and undoubtedly will influence the negotiating positions of the parties, the plan meticulously works out crucial specifics in advance. These specifics both educate the public and provide a foundation and framework for further negotiations on the devilish details.
In the words of Hannah Arendt, Israel and Palestine currently inhabit the space “between the no longer and the not yet.” They stand where Robert Frost once stood, facing “Two roads diverged in a yellow wood.” Israel has traveled down one path, tracing it “as far as [it] could” — and met a disastrous end. It now has an opportunity to take the other road, “just as fair/ And having perhaps the better claim”, because it passes through the land of wisdom and peace.
Missing this opportunity will compound the tragedy.
* * *
Daniel Wolf is a Political Scientist (Ph.D. (abd) University of California, San Diego), attorney (J.D., Harvard Law School), and serial entrepreneur. He specializes in analyzing and solving complex sociopolitical problems. The strategy document that accompanies the plan is here. Please share this essay if you believe it might wake someone up.
