They say that the truth can come from the most unlikely places.
Recently a member of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party said: “Every war ends with diplomacy, and this one will too after Ukrainian victory.”
The Chairwoman of the U.S. Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), made this statement after her caucus released a letter calling for a negotiated settlement to the Russia-Ukraine War, prompting massive blowback.
Let’s place Jayapal’s statement in another context: “Every war ends with diplomacy, and this one will too after Israeli victory.”
How many on the international stage would agree with that statement?
Israel and Ukraine’s wars of survival are not so different. Over 100 years ago, as the Jewish people’s struggle to regain sovereignty over their ancestral and indigenous homeland gathered apace, the Arabs in the Land of Israel, whose ancestors had conquered and colonized the territory, rose up to try and quell the Jewish national liberation movement through violence and incitement.
In 1948, half a dozen foreign armies unsuccessfully attempted to destroy the State of Israel upon its rebirth.
Every attack on Israel since then is part of this ongoing war, whether they are terrorist attacks, rocket launches or a global delegitimization campaign.
This war was not caused by Israel, but by violent Palestinian rejectionism. This is borne out by the statements and actions of the Palestinians themselves, which point to the war aim of ending Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people.
Israel has tried the negotiated settlement route countless times. In 1936, 1947, 1967, 2001 and 2008, to name just a few times when Israel either made substantial and generous offers to resolve the conflict or accepted outside mediation along similar lines.
At every opportunity, the Palestinians rejected these offers. They did so because accepting them would also mean accepting that their war of rejectionism was at an end and they would have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
There is a reason why Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas repeatedly says he will never accept Israel as a Jewish state, even while calling for the acquisition of territory and other demands that were offered him in 2008.
All of this proves that Jayapal’s formulation fits the Israel-Palestinian context perfectly. Only after Israel wins the war against Palestinian rejectionism will the defeated come to the table and accept a negotiated settlement.
That is how wars have ended throughout history. One side wins, one side loses and the losing party accepts the terms of defeat in negotiations.
It is clear that the Congressional Progressive Caucus wanted to endorse the tired and failed paradigm that only negotiations end wars. But its leaders quickly understood that this sounded bad to an American electorate that understands who is the aggressor and who is the victim in the Russia-Ukraine War. Moreover, most Americans clearly understand the absurdity and plain bad policy of calling for a negotiated settlement to the conflict.
The Caucus’ about-turn shows the reasonableness of the victory paradigm. It demonstates that if the case can be made, decision-makers will understand that diplomacy can only take place when a war has ended, the aggrieved party has won and the aggressor has accepted defeat.
Israel must demonstrate to its American friends that this is indeed the case in regard to Israel’s struggle against Palestinian rejectionism, as it is in Ukraine.
An Israeli victory is the only path to peace because it ends the bloodshed and violence once and for all by sending a clear message to the Palestinian aggressor that the jig is up, and they cannot achieve their war aims.
Despite claims that it is intractable, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can end peacefully and immediately if Israel and others in the international community, led by the U.S., put enough pressure on the Palestinians to accept the legitimacy and permanence of the Jewish state.
Through such an acceptance, the raison d’être of the Palestinian war would be ended. It would be a victory for Israel and all those who seek an end to the conflict and bloodshed.
IDF Maj. (Res.) Alex Nachumson is CEO of Mivtachi Israel, an organization of former IDF officers, and adviser to the Israel Victory Project.
