This assertion that “you can’t kill ideas” is a fallacy. The reality is far more complex.
If you wage a war with the intent to conquer, believing that this conquest is divinely ordained by your prophet, but your entire leadership, military capabilities, and the leadership of your northern ‘saviors’ have been either wiped out, stunted, or crippled, then 20th-century history has proven that it’s better to accept defeat. If you consider these deaths ‘necessary sacrifices’ and martyr your leadership for a supposed pristine paradise, then you are more likely to die by the same sword.
This assertion that “you can’t defeat ideas” is a fallacy. The reality is far more complex. Yes, there are still Nazis lurking in the shadows, but there is no Third Reich. Yes, there are still supporters of Emperor Hirohito, but there is no Imperial Japan. Ideas, even religious in nature, are created by humans, and anything humans create is malleable, subject to change and can be sentenced to irrelevancy. We have witnessed many ideas – even fanaticism of a religious kind – be defeated throughout history.
For those who believe this is impossible because the idea of jihad is inherent and inseparable to any and all of Islam, you are correct in its inherency, but also incorrect in terms of its separable nature. I invite you to explain the UAE, who outlawed, suppressed and ultimately sentenced the threat to a meaningless nature. If ideas in general can’t be defeated, then explain precisely how Europeans live the democratic lives they do today, following the Second World War. How is it that there are no Christian crusaders? Why are people no longer subjected to hanging in the Christian West for imaginary crimes like blasphemy?
If we accept the premise, the question then remains: what to do? Here too, there is historical precedent. On August 14, 1941, during World War II, President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill formed the Atlantic Charter. Even as the swastika flag flew over the Eiffel Tower and the Acropolis, as Londoners lived in fear of Luftwaffe bombers, and as Nazi tanks advanced toward Moscow, Roosevelt and Churchill looked to the future. In the Atlantic Charter, they outlined their vision for the world following the defeat of Nazism.
This is what Netanyahu lacks. He can speak of Churchill all he wants, but rhetoric should not be confused with reality. If Netanyahu wants to cement a Churchillian legacy, despite his political toxicity, he needs to talk less of Churchill and actually do Churchill. I always feel somewhat compelled at this point to remind people that what the years 1993, 1996, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2014, and 2021 have in common is that they all saw wars or varying degrees of violent campaigns between Israel and its adversaries. Each ended with an internationally sanctioned ceasefire, and each ceasefire failed, leading to the next war because the idea of “from the river to the sea” was not defeated but left simmering.
I’m not sure what the logic is here, other than the comforting illusion that the fighting has stopped. It is important to remember that the next war would include all the factors of this war, with the addition and high likelihood of a nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran. Given this failed concept, does anyone in their right mind believe the path to peace is paved by a pause button.
Since October 7, Hamas has sought to divide Israel against itself. It has done this by deploying its own noncombatants as human shields and by taking hundreds of Israeli hostages. The result has been to drive decent people in opposing directions—turning some brutal in their willingness to sacrifice innocent lives, while making others desperate to trade their own future security to end the war. The reason we in Israel play into this is because we believe, and have been led to believe, that we are stuck facing one of these two ‘choiceless’ choices set forth by Gaza’s jihadist, enabled by naive foreign policy and kept floating by the Israeli governments unwillingness to lay out a political plan.
Sinwar’s death presents a renewed opportunity to shift the paradigm. There has always been another way, one that long ago would have been more effective in securing the release of hostages and putting the final nail in Hamas’s coffin. That path begins with a maximum pressure campaign on Doha and getting the Saudis back to the table. If the Americans are serious about ending the war, seeing the hostages released and normalizing peace, this is where they should immediately wield their influence.