Being ‘anti-war’ is the most dangerous position of all.

To be truly “pro-peace” is to be “pro-strength,” “pro-defense,” and when necessary, “pro-war.”

The annual memorial ceremony for the fallen of Israel’s Home Front Command (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.

---

Calls to be “anti-war” often sound noble.

Who wouldn’t want peace? Who wouldn’t prefer that soldiers stay home, cities remain intact, and human life be spared the brutalities of combat?

But the harsh reality is that war does not erupt out of nowhere. Wars are not accidents of miscommunication or misunderstandings that can be smoothed over with platitudes about peace. Wars exist because people — nations, movements, ideologies — fundamentally disagree about what is right, what is just, and what is non-negotiable.

Iran seeks nuclear weapons to gain hegemony in the Middle East and intimidate its neighbors. Israel, along with much of the West, refuses to allow a regime that openly calls for the annihilation of the Jewish state to possess such weapons. Russia insists on dominating Ukraine and reclaiming imperial control. Ukraine insists on sovereignty and survival. Hamas is committed to eradicating Israel; Israelis are committed to not being eradicated.

These are not small policy disputes or questions of compromise. They are foundational conflicts of existence and identity, and pretending otherwise does not prevent conflict; it guarantees it.

This is why “being anti-war” is often an ignorant position. To posture against war is to deny reality. It is to signal to aggressors that one does not have the resolve to confront them; it invites conflict rather than preventing it.

Enemies look for weakness. They strike when they believe their opponents lack the will to fight. By contrast, they tend to avoid strong nations that are visibly willing, able, and ready to defend themselves. History teaches this lesson over and over again, but those who fancy themselves enlightened often refuse to learn it.

I saw someone recently holding a sign that said: “Pro-Peace, Pro-Israel.” Everyone I know in the civilized world is pro-peace, but peace is not achieved by wishing it into existence. Peace is only possible when the enemies of peace are defeated. To be truly “pro-peace” is to be “pro-strength,” “pro-defense,” and when necessary, “pro-war.” Anything less is empty sentiment, a way of outsourcing responsibility for security to those willing to do the fighting while pretending moral superiority in abstaining.

It is easy to be anti-war when you have never been attacked or threatened. It is easy to chant slogans about peace when your borders are secure, your children are safe, and your freedom is taken for granted.

But for nations and peoples who have faced existential threats, pacifism is not a luxury that can be afforded. Israel does not have the privilege of pretending war can be wished away, nor does Ukraine, nor did Britain in 1940. Only those protected by the sacrifices of others can indulge in the fantasy that peace exists independent of strength.

In the West, we have to be honest that we have enemies who want to destroy our cultures and societies. Islamism, represented by Iran and its proxies, seeks to topple Western influence and replace it with a fundamentalist empire. Communism, represented most clearly by China, seeks global dominance through economic control, military expansion, and technological surveillance. Authoritarianism, embodied in Russia and North Korea, thrives on aggression, intimidation, and repression.

These forces are not hiding their intentions. They state them openly, and they act accordingly. Pretending they do not exist, or can be disarmed by goodwill alone, is not enlightenment; it is suicidal.

The past century provides brutal reminders of what happens when peace is pursued through weakness. In 1938, Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich declaring “peace for our time” after giving Hitler everything he wanted in exchange for nothing more than a promise. That promise lasted mere months, and the world plunged into a war that killed tens of millions. Pacifism did not stop Hitler; it empowered him.

By contrast, Winston Churchill, who understood that words are powerless without strength, rallied Britain with the blunt truth that survival required struggle. The same is true today: Aggressors are not persuaded by slogans, they are deterred by steel.

The Cold War provides another lesson. For decades, the United States and the Soviet Union stared each other down. It was not goodwill that prevented a third world war, but the grim logic of deterrence. Nuclear parity, backed by the credible willingness to use it, preserved peace. The doctrine of “peace through strength” was not a slogan, but the reality that kept Soviet tanks from rolling into Western Europe. Pacifism would not have prevented a nuclear standoff; it would have ended it quickly, in Moscow’s favor.

Even the humanitarian disasters of the 1990s reveal the folly of anti-war thinking. In Bosnia and Rwanda, Western powers hesitated, debated, and restrained themselves, insisting on diplomacy while slaughter unfolded. In both cases, the absence of decisive force magnified the killing. It was only when strength was finally applied — when NATO intervened in the Balkans, when belated forces entered Rwanda — that the massacres ceased. Being “anti-war” in those years did not save lives; it cost them.

Israel’s history is another testament to the necessity of strength. Since its founding in 1948, it has been surrounded by enemies who vowed its destruction. It survived not because its neighbors suddenly embraced goodwill but because it was willing to fight — and win — every single time. In 1967, Israel faced the mobilization of multiple Arab armies; it responded with overwhelming force in the Six-Day War, securing its survival and reshaping the map.

In 1973, when Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Yom Kippur, Israel’s willingness to mobilize and fight back turned near-disaster into survival. Deterrence is not a slogan; it is the iron wall that protects life in a region where weakness is an invitation to annihilation.

Consider the current war with Hamas. Hamas assumed, as it had many times before, that Israel’s allies would restrain it from truly defeating the terror organization. That international pressure would once again preserve Hamas’ grip on Gaza, regardless of its atrocities. But the calculation this time was wrong. Israel has prosecuted the war relentlessly, even as the costs mounted, because survival demands nothing less. More than 700 days later, Hamas is on the verge of collapse — a just and necessary outcome. The lesson is as clear as it is old: War is sometimes the only way to secure peace.

Hamas’ leader, Yahya Sinwar, illustrates this truth vividly. As the architect of the October 7th massacre, he believed his brutality would fracture Israel’s society, terrorize its people, and paralyze its allies. He repeatedly backed away from ceasefire-for-hostage negotiations whenever he sensed the West growing soft toward Hamas and heavy-handed toward Israel. Each time international pressure mounted on Israel to compromise, Sinwar calculated that time was on his side — that Western impatience would protect him and preserve his rule.

But when it became clear that Israel would not relent, and that his atrocities had in fact sealed Hamas’ fate, Sinwar effectively consigned himself and his movement to suicide. The very bloodshed he unleashed became the death warrant for his regime. This is the projection the West should take against all its enemies: that those who challenge us will not win breathing space through delay or diplomacy, but will ultimately destroy themselves against our resolve.

Now, it must be said that not all wars are created equal. Some, like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, were poorly conceived, poorly executed, or pursued without a clear strategic or moral endgame. History will continue to debate their wisdom, and in hindsight they look more like cautionary tales than noble struggles.

But only the intellectually lazy collapse every war into the same moral category. To use failures of judgment in one context as a reason to oppose every war in every context is not serious thinking; it is evasion. There is a vast moral difference between a war of choice fought with no coherent strategy and a war of survival fought to prevent annihilation. To pretend they are the same is to confuse error with necessity and miscalculation with duty.

The moral case is often distorted. Pacifists claim the high ground, insisting that to oppose war is to oppose suffering. But this is an illusion. Sometimes war is not immoral; it is moral necessity. Fighting against Nazism, against jihadist terror — these are not wars of choice, they are wars of survival. The tragedy is not that wars exist, but that aggressors force free peoples into them. To be anti-war in such moments is not virtuous; it is to abdicate moral responsibility, to abandon the innocent to the mercies of the strong.

This is what being prepared for war achieves. It is what weakness never delivers. To proclaim oneself “anti-war” is, in practice, to empower those who wage war. It emboldens aggressors to test, to probe, to strike. Peace is not created by wishing war away, but by ensuring that enemies know they will be destroyed if they attempt it. As the Latin proverb wisely reminds us: Si vis pacem, para bellum. “If you want peace, prepare for war.”

Israelis are not warmongers. We do not wake up each day longing for battle or pining for the next war. Like anyone else, our daily conversations are about work, health, travel plans, raising children, and the ordinary hopes of ordinary lives.

But we are not fools. When we are attacked, we understand that survival requires fighting back. War is not what we seek; it is what we are forced into. And when forced, we do not shrink from the responsibility.

What is truly absurd is the expectation that a nation under attack should allow its enemy to dictate the terms of its response. No sane people would accept such a standard in their own lives, yet this is precisely the double standard so often demanded of Israel.

If the people of Gaza do not want to live in ruins, maybe they should stop empowering those who build tunnels instead of homes, rockets instead of schools, and terror armies instead of a future. It is not Israel’s job to build Gaza’s schools, pave its streets, or secure its future, just as it is not Canada’s job to build U.S. schools and pave American streets. It is Israel’s job to protect its citizens, especially after being attacked.

If you are truly concerned about Gaza, then put pressure on the folks (Hamas) and their allies who control it. Do not demand that Israel commit national suicide by restraining its right to defend itself. Demand instead that Hamas and its backers abandon their obsession with Israel’s destruction and invest in building a future for their own people.

In the end, the ignorance of being anti-war lies in confusing intentions with outcomes. Good intentions do not stop rockets, tanks, or nuclear programs. Strength does. Readiness does. The willingness to fight does.

Peace will never belong to those who chant against war. It will belong to those who are strong enough, brave enough, and determined enough to win wars — and thereby prevent the next one. That is not cynicism, but realism. And without realism, civilization itself cannot survive.

---