The Only Way to End the Gaza War

In addition to returning all the hostages held by Palestinians in Gaza, of course.

An IDF unit made up of cruiser fighters and special reserve units (photo: IDF/X)

Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.

---

You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.

---

History has a peculiar way of rewarding clarity.

Since time immemorial, wars have not merely been contests of military might but declarations of intent — tests of sovereignty, vision, and resilience. And, like a ledger balancing the costs of hubris, wars have traditionally ended with tangible consequences, often measured in land.

With the Gaza war and the threat of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israel faces a moment where its historical clarity of purpose can be wielded as its most potent weapon. The only way to decisively end this war is to turn the chaos of conflict into a reordering of geography — a redefinition of borders that signals to aggressors that territorial adventurism comes with irrevocable costs.

---

The Logic of Land Loss

Across centuries, the principle that warring nations pay for their aggression with land has shaped the global map. After World War II, Germany’s territorial losses to Poland and the Soviet Union were not merely punitive but instructional. The message was clear: Initiate war, and you risk not just defeat but diminution.

Similarly, the Ottoman Empire’s centuries-long decline culminated in its dissolution, its lands parceled into new states as a consequence of siding with the Central Powers in World War I. The rationale is simple yet unyielding: Territorial loss serves as both deterrent and resolution, curbing the defeated party’s capacity for future aggression.

In the Mexican-American War from 1846 to 1848, Mexico lost and ceded over half its territory to the United States, including modern-day California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming. Thirteen years later, the American Civil War exploded, and the Confederacy — having initiated the war — was defeated, resulting in the reintegration of its territories into the U.S. (and the Confederacy ceased to exist as a political entity).

After being defeated by Prussia in the 1870-1871 Franco-Prussian War, France ceded Alsace-Lorraine to Germany. And, following the Russo-Japanese War from 1904 to 1905, Russia lost southern Sakhalin and influence over Port Arthur (Lüshun) and Manchuria to Japan.

As it pertains to Hamas and Hezbollah — Israel’s adversaries in Gaza and Lebanon, respectively — they are not traditional state actors, of course. They are terror organizations embedded within populations and operating from territories that serve as de facto bases of power.

For all intents and purposes, Hamas has established the “State of Palestine” in Gaza since violently rising to power there in 2007.

And in Lebanon, Hezbollah was officially founded in 1985 with a manifesto that featured the expulsion of Western influences from Lebanon, the destruction of Israel, allegiance to Islamic Republic of Iran’s supreme leader, and the establishment of an Iran-influenced Islamist government.

Since 1990, Hezbollah has officially participated in Lebanese politics, in a process which is described as the Lebanonization of Hezbollah, and it later formed political alliances. In 2008, Lebanon’s new cabinet unanimously approved a policy statement that recognizes Hezbollah’s existence as an armed organization and guarantees its right to “liberate or recover occupied lands.”

As such, Hezbollah has evolved into a significant political force in Lebanon, participating in elections and establishing social services, while also bolstering its military capabilities — the same blueprint that Hamas has followed in Gaza. Today Hezbollah is considered the most heavily armed non-state group in the world, with its armed strength assessed to be equivalent to that of a medium-sized army.

Thus, by using Gaza and southern Lebanon to launch relentless attacks on Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah effectively invoke the ancient rules of war: If land is the ultimate resource they exploit, then land must be the resource they forfeit.

---

The Israeli Predicament

Israel has long resisted the temptation of territorial conquest, not out of weakness but from a belief in coexistence — an enduring hope that neighbors might someday choose peace over annihilation.

The withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 was a high-stakes gamble on that hope. Israel dismantled settlements, uprooted its citizens, and handed over control of a fertile, resource-rich region. In return, it received not reconciliation but rockets, terror tunnels, and an enemy emboldened by the illusion of victory.

The north tells a similar story: Hezbollah, armed to the teeth and fueled by Iranian ambitions, threatens not only Israel’s borders but its very existence. Like Hamas, it operates from within civilian infrastructure, daring Israel to strike and face the court of global opinion.

And yet, when such groups gamble on war, they must be made to understand that geography — the very soil beneath their feet — can and will be redefined by their choices.

---

A Necessary Recalibration

By seizing and holding land, Israel could achieve three critical objectives:

1. Strategic Depth: Control over parts of Gaza and southern Lebanon would provide a buffer against future attacks, dismantling the infrastructure of terror and creating zones of Israeli oversight that deny Hamas and Hezbollah their operational freedom.

2. Psychological Impact: The loss of territory would send a clear message to adversaries and their supporters — war against Israel has consequences that cannot be undone. This would not only deter future aggression but also recalibrate the calculations of those who fund and arm such groups (e.g. Iran, Qatar).

3. Negotiating Power: Territorial acquisition would shift the balance in future peace talks, offering Israel leverage that has long been eroded by the asymmetrical nature of its conflicts. Land, after all, is not just a prize but a bargaining chip.

---

The Witty Paradox

The world often accuses Israel of “excessive force,” a term as oxymoronic as it is hypocritical. Excessive compared to whom? The “proportionality” police, who would have preferred a hundred Israeli civilians dead for every hundred terrorists neutralized, offer no solutions — only moral gymnastics.

But here’s the twist: By reclaiming land, Israel could arguably reduce the necessity of future wars. It’s ironic, isn’t it? A small nation, perennially accused of overreaction, could offer the ultimate lesson in restraint by ending cycles of violence through decisive action.

---

A Historical Echo

Zionism itself is rooted in the reclamation of land — an ancient homeland restored through tenacity and sacrifice. The war against Hamas and Hezbollah is, in many ways, a continuation of that legacy: a struggle not merely for survival but for the right to define Israel’s destiny on its own terms. If the world demands clarity, let Israel respond with the oldest answer known to war. Let it redraw the map.

This is not a call for indiscriminate annexation, but a pragmatic recognition that peace cannot be achieved while enemies are free to use land as both shield and sword. To those who might bristle at such measures, a simple rebuttal suffices: History agrees. Aggressors who lose wars lose land. Why should this conflict be any different?

Thus, the only way to end the Gaza war is not through endless ceasefires or recycled negotiations but through a resolution as old as war itself. Land must change hands. For every rocket fired, every tunnel dug, and every act of terror planned, there must be a cost that reverberates far beyond the battlefield.

Only then will Hamas and its colleagues in Hezbollah understand that Israel’s boundaries are not just lines on a map, but lines they cross at their peril. And when the dust settles, those lines will tell a new story — one of clarity, consequence, and enduring strength.

---