Israel's Strategy Post-October 7: Beyond Absolute Victory
Translated & summarized from Makor Rishon by baba
An analysis argues that Israel's post-October 7th pursuit of "absolute victory" is a flawed strategy, similar to the previous "containment" policy. It advocates for a balanced approach combining military strength with political wisdom and compromise for long-term regional security.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Israel's post-October 7th strategy of "absolute victory" is criticized as unrealistic and dangerous.
- The previous "containment" policy failed to prevent the October 7th attack.
- An unending war risks international isolation and intensified regional hatred.
- Long-term security requires a combination of military deterrence and political compromise.
- The pursuit of absolute victory could endanger Israel's existence in the region.
As Israel approaches the Hebrew and Gregorian anniversaries of the October 7th massacre, the article critically examines the nation's strategic direction, arguing that the pursuit of "absolute victory" is as flawed as the pre-October 7th policy of "containment." The previous approach, which aimed to manage Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran through limited conflicts, allowed these entities to grow stronger, culminating in the devastating Hamas attack.
In response to the massacre, Israel adopted a new slogan: "until absolute victory," targeting the entire Iranian-backed "Shiite axis." However, the author contends this is a dangerous and unrealistic concept for a small nation surrounded by hostile populations. History shows that Israeli military victories often provoke Arab retaliation, leading to cycles of conflict. The article posits that an unending war to subdue the Arab and Muslim world will only intensify hatred and could isolate Israel internationally, as global powers prioritize stability and economic interests, potentially sacrificing Israel if its actions threaten regional peace.
The piece questions the ultimate strategic goal of Israel in the Middle East, suggesting that military victory is merely a means to ensure survival. It argues that a combination of strong deterrence and political wisdom, including a willingness to compromise, is necessary for long-term security. Relying solely on military force, without offering incentives for de-escalation, is deemed insufficient. The author concludes that Israel needs a balanced approach, combining military strength with diplomatic flexibility to secure its place in the region, avoiding excessive risks while being open to achievable compromises.
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.
