The author is the Deputy Head of the Security Policy Institute of the Israel Defense and Security Forum (IDSF / Habithonistim), and former policy advisor to the Minister for Strategic Affairs, Ron Dermer.
Today, Eighty-seven years ago, on August 19, 1939, an economic agreement was signed in Moscow, in what would within days become one of the most cynical, brutal, and consequential agreements in recorded history: the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Under the agreement, Germany committed to selling equipment, machinery, and goods to the Soviet Union in exchange for supplies of food and raw materials.
A few days later, on August 23, German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov signed the non-aggression pact, to which a secret protocol was attached dividing Eastern Europe between the two monstrous dictators of the 20th century.
On paper, the agreements between Berlin and Moscow promised stability: economic cooperation, non-aggression, and security. In reality, they helped prepare the ground for war. The agreement removed Hitler’s immediate fear of a war on two fronts and enabled him to invade Poland on September 1, 1939. A few weeks later, the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east. At the same time, economic cooperation between the two countries continued, with the Soviet Union supplying Germany with essential raw materials that supported its war effort.
But the cynical alliance between the dictatorships was also temporary. Less than two years after the agreement was signed, on June 22, 1941, Hitler violated his commitment and launched Operation Barbarossa, the massive invasion of the Soviet Union. Within hours, yesterday’s partner became today’s enemy. The promises signed in Moscow proved worthless in the face of the Nazi regime’s true ambitions, and the illusion that an agreement with an ideological enemy could nullify its long-term objectives was shattered at an enormous cost in blood.
The historical lesson of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is not only about distant European history, but about the core of our Zionist-national worldview: We must never rely on agreements or international guarantees signed with dictators, totalitarian regimes, and terrorist organizations.
The tendency to believe that every conflict can be resolved through diplomacy, negotiations, and a signed agreement is willful blindness. This approach mistakenly assumes that all actors in the international arena share the same fundamental values: the sanctity of life, economic rationality, and a commitment to honoring agreements.
However, when facing regimes and organizations that are not committed to the values of liberalism and basic morality, civilized formalities are nothing more than a cover for rearmament and preparations for the next strike.
Consider the Ayatollah regime in Iran. For years, the West attempted to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic agreements, such as the 2015 nuclear deal. Iran signed, smiled for the cameras, and continued to legitimize its nuclear program, finance terrorist proxies throughout the Middle East, and openly declare its intention to destroy the State of Israel. For a radical totalitarian regime, an agreement is not a path to peace, but a tactical tool for buying time, reducing pressure, and building strength in preparation for confrontation.
This is all the more true when dealing with murderous terrorist organizations such as Hamas. Repeated attempts to reach deals, “arrangements,” “understandings,” and ceasefires with an organization that has inscribed the destruction of Israel on its banner have proven to be a destructive conception. October 7 opened the eyes of anyone who refused to see: Hamas exploited every period of calm and every “understanding” to rearm, dig tunnels, and plan the most horrific massacre since the Holocaust. For a jihadist terrorist organization, every agreement is merely a brief respite in preparation for future aggression.
Zionism as an Answer to Illusions
The Revisionist-Zionist approach offers a clear and sober alternative: the Iron Wall.
The national approach does not rely on the goodwill of other nations, nor on the signatures of tyrants. Herzl, Jabotinsky, and the founders of Zionism understood that the security of the Jewish people can rely solely on its own strength – military, economic, and spiritual.
When leaders around the world or in Israel speak of “political arrangements” with actors that do not recognize our right to exist, we must remember August 19, 1939. We must make clear:
• No faith in dictators: A regime in which the suppression of human rights and violence are inherent to its nature will never honor an agreement with a free state.
• Strength is the only guarantee: Resolute military deterrence, a willingness to achieve decisive victory, and strong national sovereignty are the only guarantees of peace and credibility.
• Reality must be analyzed based on ideology, not wishful thinking: Terrorist organizations and extremist regimes must be judged according to their ideology and actions, not according to the tactical analysis of one agreement or another.
Eighty-seven years after the cynical deal was signed in Moscow, Israel must continue to pursue a firm, sober, and independent security policy. Agreements are made with peace-seeking states and law-abiding regimes; when facing tyrants and terrorist organizations, only strength, decisive victory, and self-reliance will ensure the eternity of Israel.