Israel's Iran war saw 'peace through appeasement' shift to 'peace through strength' - opinion

For decades, Middle East peace-making was based on the concept of “peace through appeasement” – how much land, money, or weapons Israel should give in exchange for a promise not to attack it.

This was the basis for the 1980s framework of “land for peace” and the 1990s two-state solution, as well as various arrangements made over the years with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran.

“Peace through appeasement” was rooted in two core assumptions: The Arabs want to destroy Israel, and Israel is not sufficiently strong to sustain a physical attack from a population 30 times its size or diplomatic pressure from the West.

The world witnessed Israeli awe and unprecedented American support. Arab regimes now seek to benefit from this Israeli strength, displayed not only on the battleground but also in agricultural fields, science labs, and technology incubators.

Therefore, we should expect to see a shift from “divide the baby” peace frameworks that are meant to weaken Israel, make all parties unhappy, and perpetuate war (two-state solution), to win-win deals that benefit all parties involved (Abraham Accords).

While “peace through appeasement” (1920-2025) is a short-term fix that buys a few years of quiet until the next round, “peace through strength” (2025-) leads to long-term stability.

This shift completes a historic cycle that dates back to the inception of the Jewish nation, some 4,000 years ago.

Moments after leaving Egypt, Moses instilled the concept of “peace through strength” as a guiding principle.

In the “Song of the Sea,” he described the miraculous awe God delivered to Egypt in redeeming Israel, how this generated fear in Middle Eastern nations, and how this deterrence will enable the journey ahead, until we are planted back home where we are free to praise and worship God.

Indeed, some 4,000 years later, we arrived.

In the past few weeks, we saw the miraculous awe delivered to Iran and its proxies, how this generated a shift in Middle Eastern nations’ stance toward the Jewish state, and how this deterrence can enable peace – through strength.

Though we still have to recognize this: Mental transformations are not easy, including the switch from appeasement to strength.

Indeed, in the decades before Moses, the policy of the Israelites in Egypt seemed to be “peace through appeasement.” So much so, that when Moses began the emancipation process, some urged him to resort back to appeasement: “You put a sword in their hand to slay us,” they scolded him.

Even right before crossing the Red Sea, they urged him to abort the mission: “It is better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert.”

Yet within hours, upon witnessing the miracles, the nation of Israel “believed in God and in Moses his servant” – in doing so, switching from a mind frame of appeasement to one of strength.

Are we going to see a similar process in the coming months?

Core to this would be getting rid of the flagship appeasement framework of the two-states solution (“From the river to the Green Line, the West Bank will be free” is a Western colonialist concept that has nothing to do with Palestinians).

This would pave the path to new creative thinking. I laid out such new peace ideas in a series of Jerusalem Post articles earlier this year.

Such a grand vision would be unfeasible until recently. But circumstances rapidly changed: Life in the desert is no longer impractical, thanks to Israeli agricultural innovations of recent years; the mass labor needed for such huge projects can now be available by Gazans seeking to leave; and funding is now more practical thanks to Marshal Plan-like commitments of world nations wanting to rebuild the Middle East.

This represents a shift in the pro-Palestinian stance: from exclusive focus on Palestinian national rights, which resulted in Western dehumanization of Palestinians (such as denying them the opportunity to leave Gaza), to a renewed focus on Palestinian human rights, including the basic human right to leave a war zone, choose if and where to work (a right robbed by Europe), and restoring Palestinian personal self-determination. Indeed, this would emancipate Palestinians from a century of European occupation and exploitation.

We should have no illusions: “Peace through appeasement” forces will vehemently resist this. We also learn this from Moses.

Some 15 months after leaving Egypt, Moses sent 12 tribal leaders to tour the Promised Land, with three specific tasks: See the land, get strengthened, and bring back fruit.

Two of the three tasks were fully accomplished, but 10 of the 12 leaders defied the order to “get strengthened.”

Instead, they slandered the land and demoralized the Israeli nation. They told them about giants living there and of fortified cities, ushering the nation to conclude that we cannot win, so we would be better off going back to Egypt, where we can restore appeasement policies.

Caleb, one of the two faithful leaders, stressed that we indeed can inherit the land, and along with Joshua, the other faithful leader, he explained that If God wants us, it will happen.

Indeed, If there are giants, we can develop anti-giant weaponry such as the sling – later used by David. If there are fortified walls, we can develop wall-deconstruction strategies – later used by Joshua. If their leaders are scattered in bunkers, we can develop exploding beepers. And if they fire thousands of missiles at us, we can develop Star Wars technologies to intercept them in space.

As Caleb and Joshua stressed, there is no limit to God’s miracles. Just stay faithful: Peace through strength.

Sadly, it was too late for that demoralized generation.

As our generation chooses between those two competing approaches, we have to recognize that history is clear: When Jews were strong, such as during the united kingdom of David and Solomon, they had peace.

When Jews were weak, such as during 2,000 years of exile, they were continuously attacked and blamed for all of Europe’s woes. And no matter how submissive they were to their European oppressors, they were persecuted, boycotted, sanctioned, delegitimized, and murdered.