
Since neither Israel nor the US has a political endgame vision with a path to Palestinian self-determination or rights, Palestinian liberation now hinges on Israel’s breaking point under the prolonged strain from Iran, its allies (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis), and Palestinian resistance.
Israel’s resilience may be formidable, but it is not infinite. The cost of continuing a maximalist strategy that offers no political horizon — no plan for Palestinian rights, no vision for coexistence, no endgame beyond military dominance — will soon exceed the political courage required on Israel’s part to do something transformational.
Acknowledging Palestinian national aspirations, engaging in diplomacy, and accepting that security cannot be built on erasure is not just a moral imperative for Israel— it may soon be a strategic necessity.
The war has already triggered regional blowback with Iran (including missile exchanges and U.S. involvement), escalation with Hezbollah in the north and increased armed resistance in the West Bank and attacks from Yemen. Israel’s enemies have not been broken beyond recovery and are not likely ever to be so. As one analyst put it, “Israel has no effective theory of victory, and Iran has not been defeated — only wounded and enraged.” Neither have Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.
Israel assumes that only complete destruction or unconditional surrender of an enemy (state or non-state) can ensure its long-term security. That’s a high-stakes gamble, because it trades short-term military dominance for long-term strategic uncertainty and instability and is, at any rate, unachievable.
By pursuing this strategy, Israel may win battles, but it will certainly lose the peace, alienate allies and ignite a wider war. Military success without political resolution only breeds the next round of war.
History shows us that absolute military victories over insurgent or proxy forces are extremely rare, even for superpowers, because non-state fighters do not need to “win” conventionally; they just need to survive and outlast their opponent.
Examples:
As for wars between states, they can end in “Total Victory” but only under certain conditions like occupation & regime change (e.g., WWII) or the enemy’s total collapse (i.e., no external backer).
The closest Israel came to “Total Victory” were in 1967, when it gained territory decisively, and in its 1982 war against Lebanon. In these two scenarios, Palestinian resistance regrouped and the expulsion of the PLO from Lebanon was the catalyst that led to Hezbollah’s rise. Iran is not Iraq in 2003; it has Russia and China’s support, nuclear ambitions, and allies with several resistance movements, making regime change impossible.
Israel cannot achieve “Total Victory” against Hamas in Gaza unless it reoccupies Gaza indefinitely, and even then, Hamas’s ideology of liberation would remain entrenched, as it had been for decades (The Nakba is a perpetual wound for Palestinians). Military victory for Israel can come only at the cost of long-term instability, radicalization and international condemnation.
So, since Israel clearly has no political endgame for the region in mind, what about the United States?
Trump’s Abraham Accords politically sidelined the Palestinian issue, the heart of the matter. The Accords normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states (UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan) without requiring progress on Palestinian statehood. This broke with the long-standing Arab League consensus that normalization should follow a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Trump administration originally pitched the Accords as part of a broader “Peace to Prosperity” plan, promising billions in investment for Palestinian infrastructure and development, but most of those funds never materialized. Palestinians rejected the plan as economic bribery without political rights. And of course, in Gaza, Israel has since obliterated any economic gains, with infrastructure in ruins and aid severely restricted.
Trump’s plan for Gaza involves removing Hamas, installing a multinational Arab administration, and encouraging voluntary emigration — displacement by another name. There’s no clear roadmap for Palestinian self determination. Trump has offered vague support for it as a “long-term aspiration,” but only if the Palestinian Authority underwent sweeping reforms, meaning accepted Jewish “settlements” that had already eaten up most of the West Bank territory and denied the political will of Palestinians.
By prioritizing normalization with Arab states and sidelining Palestinian demands, Trump’s strategy may reduce inter-state tensions — but it rooted the core conflict. As one analyst put it, “You can’t build peace on a foundation of exclusion.” Trump’s approach cements the status quo, where Palestinians are managed, not empowered.
And that’s the heart of the paradox — and the tragedy.
When Israel was “managing” the conflict up to Oct 7, it maintained a certain status quo: containing Hamas (or it thought it did), limiting Palestinian sovereignty, and avoiding final-status negotiations. That approach was costly, but predictable.
Now, with the pursuit of “Total Victory”, Israel has shifted from containment to destruction of the existing political and social fabric of Gaza — and possibly, as some officials have openly stated, toward erasing the territory’s viability altogether.
This escalation raises the stakes dramatically:
Israel’s international standing is eroding: UN resolutions have condemned its actions; legal proceedings against Israeli officials are accelerating worldwide and even traditional allies are questioning the proportionality and legality of Israel’s campaign.
Israel’s war on Palestine, Lebanon and Iran is now the longest in its history, with daily casualties and widespread displacement within Israel. The longer it drags on, the more it strains public morale, military readiness, and economic resilience.
When injustice is happening in real time, abstract talk about frameworks and roadmaps can feel hollow, like a betrayal of the urgency unfolding before our eyes. Bearing witness to genocide isn’t just emotionally overwhelming; it’s morally disorienting. It can make every discussion about long-term strategy feel distant from the tragic visceral truth on the ground. But in making sense of the events, it’s imperative, not only to articulate the unspeakable, but also to search for some light, however dim, at the end of Gaza’s tunnels.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.
Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher, and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank. Visit the author’s blog.
She is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: MEE photo showing extensive damage caused in Israel by Iranian retaliatory strikes after Israel attacked Tehran and other cities, killing dozens of Iranians (published June 14, 2025)
Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.
Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page
Become a Member of Global Research
Source link