Hesitant Diplomacy, Compromise Renders Aggressors Unaccountable
A solid and common-sense starting point in a change in strategy comes from Victoria Coates, a distinguished historian at the Heritage Foundation.
She who argues that what has been missing in the myriad negotiations to end the Gaza conflict is allowing Israel’s extraordinary battlefield and technological successes to end in victory rather than a stalemate.
In her latest book, "The Battle for the Jewish State: How Israel — and America — Can Win," Coates posits that a decisive Israeli victory is crucial not only for Israel’s security but also for upholding Western values and ensuring global stability.
To emphasize the importance of decisive action over hesitant diplomacy, the terrorist attack in New Orleans serves as a sobering reminder of the stakes involved when sympathy for terrorism is not clearly defined as a threat to the security of the United States.
Acts of terror, when tolerated as supposed resistance to oppression, can reach even the most unsuspecting locations far from the Mideast, devastating lives, and communities.
Historically, geopolitical calculations — often involving U.S. complicity — have emphasized the need to protect the parties that are defeated even if they preach, and practice, terrorism as justified by the legitimacy their grievances.
This tendency has resulted in pressure against Israel to refrain from declaring a definitive victory, even after military successes, as if, somehow, peace can simply emerge if we allow defeated adversaries to evade the consequences of their loss.
In actual fact, this emphasis on peace without victory has undermined Israel’s legitimate battlefield successes and, as America’s most important ally in the region, weakened U.S. national security interests.
And as we all sadly admit, this approach has done little or nothing to foster peace or to protect against the same terrorist threat elsewhere, because the same forces that are Israel’s adversaries in the Mideast are America’s adversaries not just at military bases overseas but at home, as we have seen in New Orleans.
Coates contends that a clear Israeli triumph would reinforce foundational principles of democracy, sovereignty, civilized governance, and the need for resolve in protecting them.
In a perfect world, there would be a more equal distribution of resources and better protection for innocent civilians in times of war.
Many of us empathize with the downtrodden — the victims of war, the poor, and the sick. However, in the long struggle to build what we broadly categorize as Western civilization and Judeo-Christian values, education, hard work, and family attachments have influenced the social and economic order, with unfortunate consequences — however regrettable -for those left behind.
The wave of disinformation and hate speech that paints developed nations as oppressors of weaker or indigenous populations has unjustly singled out Israel for condemnation, allowing its enemies to avoid accepting defeat.
In Israel’s case, the persistent bias, criticism, and even hatred displayed by international organizations have normalized the targeting of the country with thousands of rocket attacks that are often considered as requiring only temporary cessation of hostilities rather than permanent resolution.
Furthermore, an Israeli victory aligns with broader American security objectives because America is threatened by these same forces.
The military strength of the United States which has resulted from our defense budgets is significantly aimed at combating terrorism and ideologies that threaten the foundations of Western values.
In light of these perspectives, President Trump can build on campaign promises and prioritize specific strategic actions to secure an Israeli victory and promote a stable Mideast:
Redefine the Approach to Palestinian Statehood
Continued calls for Palestinian statehood, without guarantees of governance free from terrorism, have jeopardized Israel’s security, turned professed empathy for the Palestinian people into a charade, and stalled meaningful progress toward achieving stability in the region.
Building on the Abraham Accords, the U.S. should advocate for a phased approach with the following steps preceding the establishment of a new Palestinian state:
- Foster economic development.
- Reform the Palestinian Authority or establishing an alternative form of governance on the West Bank and Gaza.
- Fight terrorist groups who impose their rule on Palestinians.
- Collaborate with Israel and regional allies to rebuild Gaza through public-private partnerships with robust global oversight to ensure security and prevent interference from hostile entities.
At this time, creating another hostile state bordering Israel is precisely the very worst approach for any party seriously interested in peace.
Peace, stability, and economic and cultural exchange need to be a condition of statehood, not the illusion that, by some miracle, statehood leads to peace.
Counter Anti-Western Activities in Academic Institutions
The rise of anti-Western sentiment on university campuses, often accompanied by hostility toward Israel, has shaken the esteem in which America’s great universities are held nationally and globally.
Federal funding should be reconsidered for institutions permitting protests that violate campus regulations, obstruct access to classrooms, or display symbols of groups hostile to the U.S.
By taking measures to stop the spread of extremist ideologies on campuses while safeguarding free speech under established guidelines, the administration can reaffirm its commitment to democratic values.
Address Turkey’s Contradictory NATO Membership
Turkey’s position as a NATO member, while pursuing policies that undermine Western values — such as supporting terrorist groups, taking over territories in Syria, and adopting anti-Israel policies — requires decisive action. The U.S. should insist that Turkey align fully with NATO’s principles or face consequences for its conflicting actions.
Reaffirm a Clear Stance on Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions
The U.S. must issue an unequivocal declaration that it will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, with specific consequences outlined for violations.
By implementing these strategies, the new administration can enable a decisive Israeli victory, fostering a more peaceful and stable Mideast. Such outcomes would not only enhance Israel’s security but also reaffirm America’s role as a global leader in defending freedom and prosperity against opposing ideologies.
Failure to confront and dismantle terrorist networks, whether abroad or domestically, enables such acts of violence to proliferate. Similarly, in the Mideast, the lack of a definitive victory against hostile forces has allowed terrorist ideologies to fester.
Hesitant diplomacy and compromises failing to hold aggressors accountable only embolden those who threaten security and stability.
Mark L. Cohen has his own legal practice and was counsel at White & Case starting in 2001, after serving as international lawyer and senior legal consultant for the French aluminum producer Pechiney. Cohen was a senior consultant at a Ford Foundation Commission, an adviser to the PBS television program "The Advocates," and Assistant Attorney General in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He teaches U.S. history at the business school in Lille l'EDHEC. Read Mark L. Cohen's Reports — More Here.