The Two Faces of “Total Victory”

“A decision has been made,” says Israeli journalist Nachum Barnea on the expected withdrawal of Benny Gantz’s from the government. “Netanyahu has been forced to choose between two opposing trends. One, to continue fighting in the Gaza Strip and the North until what he calls “total victory”. The other is to halt the fighting in Gaza for at least four months, gain release of all the hostages, the chance for an arrangement on the Lebanese border, a regional alliance against Iran led by America, a possibility for normalization with Saudi Arabia, and the rehabilitation of Israel’s foreign relations. Netanyahu decided in favor of the first option”, meaning he preferred absolute victory. Gantz dubs talk of an absolute victory as empty promises. In his resignation speech, Gantz coined the term ‘real victory’, which is presented as a more realistic promise. What is the meaning of Gantz’s ‘real victory’? It is essentially identical to total victory, except that according to him it will be achieved in a war “lasting years.”

The two victories, the ‘real’ one and the ‘total’ one, lead to the same goal – “the decimation of Hamas’ military and governing capabilities.” Gantz and Netanyahu do not disagree on the war’s goals, but on how to achieve them. The differences in emphasis between them, however, hint at deep gaps between the two conceptions. For Gantz, return of the hostages is defined as the highest priority, while the collapse of Hamas is presented as a long-term mission over many years. We should therefore now halt, withdraw from Gaza, end the war and bring the hostages home. It’s that simple, but doubtful if it’s correct.

In fact, Gantz, encouraged by the American administration, is proposing to meet Hamas’ demands, which are analyzed ad nauseum in every TV studio in Israel. Every Arab affairs commentator repeatedly states that Hamas has not changed its demand – a cessation of hostilities and complete withdrawal from Gaza. Describing Hamas’ demand as a cessation of hostilities does not, however, fully reflect its position. If one wants to comply with Hamas’ demand, one must understand exactly where it is heading, and shouldn’t be surprised if Hamas also seeks ‘total’ victory, or if you will, a ‘real’ victory.

If there is no Palestinian partner, we must strive to create such a partner. Not by violently dictating who their leadership will be, but by offering a democratic solution based on full equality between the two peoples and an end to the occupation. The struggle against Iran is the mission of the Iranian people. Our mission is to defeat the Israeli extreme right and Hamas. Peace is total victory, and it is indeed real. Anyone who promises victories based on the continued humiliation, oppression, and occupation of the Palestinian people is making empty promises.

For Hamas, there is no contradiction between the two types of “victory.” In the Arab media, there is no trace of an internal Palestinian debate over tension between these two concepts. Palestinian commentators from the right, left and center do not argue at all about what is right to do. Tens of thousands of casualties, the destruction of Gaza, and economic collapse in the West Bank do not raise any doubts. They all believe in the righteousness of Hamas’ path. And how do they know Hamas is right? They simply and fervently read the Israeli press.

They are familiar with every columnist and commentator who criticizes the government and attacks Netanyahu for giving up on the hostages. They are in love with the endlessly quoted Major General Yitzhak Brik. For example, see the headline on Hezbollah’s Al-Manar website: “Israel needs to halt the war because we have already lost it.” The disintegration of Israel from within, the severe internal division, and the loss of Netanyahu’s legitimacy in Israel and the world are doing the work for Hamas.

If you want to understand Hamas, you simply have to listen to what its leaders are saying. One of them is Ghazi Hamad, the same terrorist who repeatedly promised to commit the October 7th massacre a hundred times more. That same Ghazi Hamad, the star of Arab media, gave a long interview on June 9 to the Qatari newspaper “Al-Arabi al-Jadeed”, founded by none other than our acquaintance, former Arab-Israeli MK Azmi Bishara, who is in comfortable self-exile in one of the Qatari palaces. In that interview, Hamad was asked about Hamas’ position regarding “the day after” and, unlike Netanyahu who has no plan, Hamas has an organized plan:

“We tell the Americans, the Israelis and others: Hamas will remain on the political scene and will not disappear, regardless of the Americans and Israelis. Hamas and the resistance forces made history on October 7, changed the face of the Palestinian issue, mobilized the international arena, and exposed the true face of the occupation. Therefore, anyone betting on the disappearance of Hamas and the laying down of its weapons is deceiving himself. These are invalid words, because we are the sons of the homeland, the land and the Palestinian cause, and the one who needs to leave (disappear) is the occupation.”

Here is a military victory accompanied by a strategic political plan that changes history. This is how you bring about the elimination of Israel’s governing and military capabilities using the most primitive means and a willingness to generously sacrifice as many Palestinian civilians as necessary. This was also explained by Hamas leader Khaled Mash’al in a January 2024 television interview: “The Algerians sacrificed a million and a half civilians over eight years for their independence, and what happened? These casualties became part of their history.”

After tasting some of Hamas’ position, we must re-examine Benny Gantz’s ‘real victory.’ In fact, the real victory is a magic solution offered to us by the American administration, whose various officials come and go in order to persuade Israel to adopt it. Respected commentators from Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, such as Majors General Amos Yadlin and Tamir Hayman, are tearing their hair out due to the foolishness of those refusing to adopt this solution that will immediately bring local and regional peace to Israel. Simply stop the war and receive the hostages as a gift, a cessation of hostilities with Lebanon, and the long-awaited peace with Saudi Arabia.

However, anyone who insists on examining the details of this “real peace” will have to face some disturbing questions. Let’s start with Lebanon. Why would Hezbollah agree to withdraw 40 kilometers from the border when Hamas, its smaller and battered brother, succeeds in expelling Israel from all of Gaza, despite or perhaps because of what it perpetrated on October 7th? It is more likely that Hezbollah will say that what happens in Lebanon, beyond the border, is an internal Lebanese matter. Lebanon’s fate is like that of Hamas – you lost in Gaza and there is no reason for us to give you a victory in Lebanon.

Let’s proceed. We might remind ourselves that we already have regional peace with the Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, Egypt and Jordan, and in the shadow of that peace, or because of it, we were defeated on October 7th. But let’s put that aside and ask another question. Why would Saudi Arabia want to form a regional alliance with Israel and America against Iran, when Hamas succeeds in defeating and humiliating them? We have witnessed the nature of this regional alliance, when after Biden threatened “don’t” several times, Iran fired 300 ballistic missiles at Israel, and then the U.S. demanded that Israel not retaliate.

Therefore, it seems that the common denominator between Netanyahu’s ‘absolute victory’ and Gantz’s ‘real victory’ is that they are both empty promises.  The divide in Israel is deep and real, yet it also reflects a loss of direction and a dead end. How can one achieve an ‘absolute’ or ‘real’ victory when both sides of the dispute are unwilling to consider the roots of the dead end, and especially the terrible disaster of October 7th? How can one explain Israel’s isolation and the fact that its prime minister and defense minister are wanted for questioning in the Hague? The reason is simple – a chronic unwillingness to resolve the Israeli Palestinian conflict and settle for ‘managing’ it instead. The claims that there is no partner and that the conflict is insoluble have amplified the power of the messianic forces on both sides – the Israeli messianic right and Hamas.

If there is no Palestinian partner, we must strive to create such a partner. Not by violently dictating who their leadership will be, but by offering a democratic solution based on full equality between the two peoples and an end to the occupation. This is the lesson that must be learned from October 7th. Anyone who wants to secure the future of the coming generations must present a political plan that will give both Palestinians and Israelis hope. Not an imaginary regional peace at the expense of the Palestinians, but a genuine peace plan proposal that will resolve the existential issues of both peoples once and for all.

The struggle against the Iranian regime is the mission of the Iranian people. Our mission is to defeat the Israeli extreme right and Hamas. Peace is total victory, and it is indeed real. Anyone who promises victories based on the continued humiliation, oppression, and occupation of the Palestinian people is making empty promises.

Print Friendly