In 1992, three years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union’s implosion, American-Japanese philosopher Francis Fukuyama wrote a book entitled The End of History and The Last Man. Fukuyama made the case that with the fall of the Communist bloc, the perennial rivalries between capitalism and Marxism have come to an end and the entire world was prepared to align itself along the lines of Western democratic values. One of Fukuyama’s main antagonists is American political scientist Samuel Huntington. In 1996 Huntington wrote a book entitled The Clash of Civilizations. In it, Huntington claimed that in the post-Cold War era, cultural and religious identity are going to be the main cause of conflict, which will lead to wars and instability worldwide.
Reality proves: Wars don’t die
With the fall of the World Trade Center towers in September 2001, Huntington’s theory was irrefutably proven to be right, and that religion-based and culture-based wars would continue to pitch civilizations against one another in new forms. Since then, we have been given more and more painful reminders that warfare anywhere around the world is nowhere near coming to its end, and might never end – and despite all this, many people persist in clinging to Fukuyama’s delusional theory.
Within Israeli society, too, there are groups that have for years been driven by religious-messianic thinking, according to which world peace will come within reach only if we subject ourselves to security and political concessions.
The unspeakable tragedy that engulfed us on October 7 has, admittedly, profoundly tarnished this concept; the majority among the populace have come to their senses and realized that the old doctrines are no longer realistic. At the same time there are still groups that are unwilling to let go of their naive concepts, and continue to believe that Israel must take the path of withdrawals and compromise instead of caring for its security. These groups, while not being very large, are part of the elites and wield considerable influence within Israeli society.
Leaders: Give the people some credit
The yearning to rest each man under his vine and under his fig tree is the most natural of human aspirations, however when it fails to resonate with reality, it can lead to dangerous decisions – as we saw in the early 1990s, with the signing of the Oslo Accords.
One of the reasons that drove the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to sign those accords and to commit to far-reaching concessions detrimental to Israel’s security to this day, was the belief that Israeli society was tired of fighting and was prepared to pay any price for peace.
Then, as now, this was a gross underestimation of just who the people of Israel really are. We see that the people are far more resilient and determined than its leaders. The Israeli public as a whole wants one thing – victory. Civilians and soldiers are also prepared to pay a heavy price to achieve this victory, provided the State of Israel makes no concessions, and this is something the leadership elites have got to understand. Thus for example, a recent IDSF Index survey found that 78% of those polled from within the Jewish population in Israel believe that defeating Hamas is the primary goal of the war, and that hostage releases should take place provided they do not interfere with this goal.
Regrettably, despite the strength and resiliency the people are exhibiting, some within the leadership elites still persist in sending contradictory, counterproductive messages. We are hearing calls for a compromise that will end the war, since Israel does not have any chance of winning. Some of our leaders believe there is no military solution to the problem. They suggest dangerous political solutions in the form of establishing a Palestinian state, or the handover of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority that is intent on annihilating us. Such statements imply feebleness, weakness, and pessimism, which are dispiriting to the public. Never has the chasm between the battlefield achievements and resoluteness on the ground – and the leadership – been so wide, so far removed from its people.
How can we preserve unity and lead Israel to victory?
The people’s unity depends on us. I am greatly encouraged by the way Israeli public has conducted itself these past months, however to achieve victory, the leadership and the media have to toe the line and project stability and resiliency.
Let’s start with the political leadership. The main, most pressing role for the government is to maintain unity, to lead the State of Israel toward victory. I take a very dim view of the calls for elections in the midst of the war. Political squabbles while sending our soldiers in harm’s way are irresponsible. Instead of taking the path of elections, all the Zionist parties should unite and join the war cabinet.
The army and its commanders also play a role in shaping the victory mindset. The army’s role is to continue to push for victory. It is important to understand that the government is influenced by the messages coming from the army. What we, in Israeli society, must do to strengthen the army is to set aside the preoccupation with investigating the October 7 military lapse, and stand behind the soldiers and their commanders. Once the war is over, the time will come for inquests and committees of inquiry, and those who have to will be subject to accountability for what went wrong, but now is the wrong time to deal with this. So long as the war continues, the people have to continue pushing the IDF forward, and the IDF, in turn, will push the government toward a clear victory in the war.
And this is where we come to the role the media must play. True, it is up to the media to ask questions and present a plurality of opinions, but these days, while we are fighting for our lives, the media have another role, which takes precedence over all their other roles. The media have got to mobilize in favor of the war effort, to highlight the soldiers’ heroism, and to strengthen the people’s spirit. This is not to say that we gloss over problems. It is not to say questions must not be asked. But the way this is done must be conducive to reinforcing, toward cautious optimism. The reality is that many media outlets choose to ask questions in a manner that projects cowardice. Some media organizations choose to highlight yesterday’s people, who have been left behind with the October 6 concepts, expressing agendas harmful to national morale, making defeatist statements playing into our enemies’ hands. So long as Israel is subjected to an existential threat, we – all of us – are all called upon to mobilize, at least in terms of the way we approach the conversation about the core issues.
Before reaching the boiling point: the frog jumped out of the cauldron
About two years ago we presented our IDSF strategic situation picture, in which we likened the State of Israel to the frog in the cauldron, swimming while the water is imperceptibly heating up and cooking it. The events of October 7 alerted the frog.
The horrific tragedy we endured on October 7 exacted an incredibly high price from Israeli society. This being said, it is possible that with a long-term historical perspective, we will find that this jolt has saved us from an even worse process of total annihilation.
We must not allow the frog to jump back in the cauldron. We have got to mend our ways and leverage this threat in order to emerge victorious against our enemies and guarantee the State of Israel’s security for generations to come. To get there, the road must pass through a sober look at reality, through realization that there are concepts that cannot be resurrected, and through admiration of our people, who are proving outstandingly resilient, which fills us all with great hope.
