A social psychology professor in New York studied the complexity of “endings” — everything from ending the war in Vietnam to terminating a personal relationship. Ending the Israel-Hamas war dominates the political dialogue, highlighted recently in a chat between President Biden and Leo Varadkar, the Irish prime minister. From the official White House transcript:
[Biden]: And the Taoiseach and I agree about the urgent need to increase humanitarian aid in Gaza and get the ceasefire deal — (applause) — to get a ceasefire deal that brings our — brings the hostages home and move toward a two-state solution, which is the only path — the only path for a lasting peace and security.
The focus on the ending should not obscure the barbaric beginning which is equally important, although too soon forgotten. A few voices outside of Israel, such as Douglas Murray, infer correctly from Hamas’s barbaric beginning of the war that unless it is completely defeated, greater massacres will follow. Hamas, not Israel, began the war and it is Hamas, not Israel, who envisions genocide. The 1988 Hamas Covenant includes this declaration and directive:
The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews’ usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised. To do this requires the diffusion of Islamic consciousness among the masses, both on the regional, Arab and Islamic levels. It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.
An empowered Hamas would perpetrate an unrestrained and unceasing jihad until victory rivaling Hitler’s atrocities.
Removing doubt about Hamas’s intentions, their actions have been true to their “covenant” — the October 7th attack was “unrestrained” in its predatory nature. They would engage, if allowed, in “an unceasing holy war (jihad)” until the explicit objective, genocide against Israel and the Jews, is attained. Let’s be clear about what constitutes genocide: The 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as “acts committed with the intent destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” If Israel intended genocide, it wouldn’t conduct war with the lowest civilian-to-combatant ratio (less than 1.2 civilians per combatant) and, despite the logistics of providing materiel in war zones, work to feed the enemy population.
Have you wondered in the pious choruses demanding Israel to accept a ceasefire, one never hears the logical option of Hamas surrendering? War brings humanitarian crises, deaths from disease that often exceed those from combat, and a legacy of tragedy on both sides. Hamas caused these disasters and can bring them swiftly to an end. The Nazis and imperial Japan surrendered, and the respective nations were promptly rebuilt; why do no world leaders and peace advocates press Hamas to surrender, which can immediately resolve the crisis and lead to a better future?
This path has a significant impediment. In 2008, Raymond Ibrahim wrote for the Middle East Forum that based on a treaty in 628 B.C., ratified between Muhammad and his Quraish opponents, ten years is the maximum time that Muslims can be at peace with infidels. According to Ibrahim:
Based on Muhammad’s example of breaking the treaty after two years, by citing a Quraish infraction, the sole function of the ‘peace-treaty’ (hudna) is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup for a renewed offensive. Muhammad is quoted in the Hadith saying: ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath….’
The timeline of major Israeli-Palestinian battles confirms an approximate 10-year or less duration of truce. This is why Arafat never accepted peace offers that met most of his demands, why a “revitalized” Palestinian Authority would revitalize to launch terror, and why granting a ceasefire to the weakened but not yet defeated Hamas would allow them to regroup before resuming repetitions of October 7th, as they vowed. Although the Abraham Accords and the duration of peace with moderate countries show that Muslim truce policy can be modified, it hasn’t reached the Palestinian street.
Mr. Biden and Varadkar: Hamas and much of the radicalized Palestinian population do not want a two-state solution. Seventy-five percent of Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, ruled by the Palestinian Authority, support Hamas and the October 7th massacre. When they chant “From the river to the sea” they mean a one-state solution. Remember that in radical Islam the temporary truce policy applies to all non-Islamic, infidel countries, including the United States and Ireland.
The Iranian religious leader, Ruhollah Khomeini, in his speech given one day after the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, introduced the epithets of the Great Satan and Little Satan to refer to the United States and Israel, respectively. The accompanying slogan, “Death to America” originated during this Islamic Revolution, followed by the menacing chants of “Death to Israel” now thundering throughout the world. It is no small irony that 44 years ago the United States shared the agony of a hostage crisis, linking its destiny with Israel. Death to America is tethered to Israel’s destiny.
Nearly 1,400 years later the principle of allowing only a temporary truce with infidels remains operative in Israeli-Palestinian wars. Insisting on a two-state solution until this rooted, religiously enshrined policy of radical Islam is altered, as Douglas Murray opined, is a “fantasy” and “delusion” that would leave Israel at existential risk. The lesson from the prototype Palestinian state in Gaza is that at present this ideology and facts of the past 75-plus years illustrate that the two-state solution is a road to hell for Israel paved with good intentions and political maneuvering.
The only current road to peace and security is to speak the language that Hamas understands, which is that power prevails, and the compromises required for a two-state solution are viewed as weakness and humiliation. For decades, Israel has proposed many compromises, which instead of achieving peace have only emboldened Hamas’s belief that Israel is weak and vulnerable, ready for an October 7th attack or worse. Yahya Sinwar misjudged Israel’s strength and his gamble has left Hamas on the brink of defeat and the Gazan people in the throes of disaster.
The West must let Israel decisively win the war and leave Hamas no option except to surrender or die. Unequivocal victory and unconditional surrender led to the denazification of Germans and transformative cultural changes in the Japanese. Gazans, many of whom now blame Hamas for their plight, can work together with Israel and moderate Arab countries to reconstruct a new Gaza that emerges from the bankrupt illusion that their salvation dwells not in underground tunnels, murder, rape, dismemberment, and hostages, but rather in the light of a new day that accepts the reality of Israel’s existence. This will come gradually with a grudging respect that can be won only if the world ceases to clamor for ceasefires and for once allows Israel to achieve victory.
This war is nothing less than another manifestation of the ancient battle of civilization versus barbarism that began as far back as Isaiah’s transformative vision of beating swords into plowshares. Hamas has instead used Western funding to beat plowshares into tunnels, missiles, and swords to maim. Only the necessity of defeat can alter this grotesque inversion. Only an ending that allows Israel to finish the task will bring lasting peace and security so that Israel can lay down its arms and Gaza can sow life-sustaining seeds rather than concrete tunnels of death.
The writer is a psychologist and former Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. He has published pioneering scientific articles on positive psychology, as well as political and social commentaries in the American Spectator, the American Thinker, Christian Science Monitor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Jerusalem Post, Arutz Sheva, and others.
Image: Free image, Pixabay license, no attribution required.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Rami G Khouri
Belen Fernandez
Tarik Cyril Amar
Mort Laitner
Bradley Blankenship
Erfan Fard
Michael Kwet
visit website
