1.
With whom are we signing an agreement? Our enemies are selling goods they don't possess. This is their expertise. They never had peace to sell, but in our eagerness for quiet, we forced ourselves to believe their words, which are given freely in the Middle East. The conception that led us to Oct. 7, 2023, with its roots in the disengagement from Gaza and the Oslo Accords, did not seriously consider cultural differences. Agreements in our region differ from those in the West; they are not guarantees of adherence to their content, but merely declarations of ending one state and beginning another. The end of war is not the beginning of peace.
2.
The prototype for agreements in the region's culture is the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, which Muhammad signed with the Quraysh tribe in Mecca. It was a non-aggression pact for ten years that he violated two years later when he had gathered enough strength to subdue the people of Mecca. This is how Yasser Arafat justified his signing of the Oslo Accords, and policymakers, backed by the media, refused to consider our enemies' open declarations regarding agreements with us. The same behavior is observed now. Since the beginning of the war, military officials, supported by parts of the media, have been discouraging policymakers from fighting until complete victory. Such a victory would not serve the narrative of imaginary peace, in which we granted the enemy ancestral lands, and they promised peace, meaning they gave nothing. The value of victory has been diluted in the "Spirit of the IDF" document, which, according to its authors, does not consider victory as one of the IDF's primary goals or a "core value" (it was only included in the list of secondary values as "mission adherence and striving for victory.") This is how an entire generation of commanders was neutered.
3.
For years, we relied on others to do the work for us. The Palestinian Authority would guard Samaria and Judea, Egypt would prevent the smuggling of ammunition and weapons from our southern border, Jordan would protect our eastern border, and UNIFIL would ensure the demilitarization of southern Lebanon in accordance with Resolution 1701. None of this happened. Regarding UNIFIL, most of its soldiers are Italian. As an ambassador, I worked with their commanders. After presenting incriminating evidence about Hezbollah, the commanders admitted they couldn't enforce anything on them. Last week, terrorists fired missiles at a UNIFIL post. In response, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said: "They have no right to do this, as the [Italian] soldiers also ensured Hezbollah's security, so it is unacceptable and inconceivable that they are firing at UNIFIL forces. If it's a mistake, they should learn to use their weapons better. We are not enemies of anyone; we are there to bring peace..." Wonderful. If they shoot, at least they should aim accurately at Israelis and not Italians. An Italian journalist recently told me: "UNIFIL is a farce." The Lebanese army is also a joke.
4.
Israel must remain in a security zone in southern Lebanon. The Shiites must not be allowed to return to the terror villages. With their return, the rebuilding of Hezbollah's capabilities will begin. Those warning about the price our soldiers will pay by staying in Lebanon should be asked, what's the alternative? It is not the civilians of the north who are Israel's military security belt, but the IDF. This is the natural order of things that the old conception disrupted. In the 8th century BCE, the prophet Isaiah formulated our political concept, whose laws in this ancient region have not changed since: "I looked, but there was no one to help, I was appalled that no one gave support; so my own arm achieved salvation for me, and my own wrath sustained me." (Isaiah 63:5)
