The Collapse of Israeli Strategic Assumptions: Rethinking the Palestinian Conflict
How Misguided Assumptions Fueled Disaster and What Must Change

Israel’s strategic assumptions collapsed on October 7th, alongside its southwestern defense line. These included the belief that Arab sovereignty west of the Jordan River is viable, Hamas is a rational actor, automation can replace human oversight, and a "small, smart army" is sufficient. These flawed premises were exacerbated by long-term societal and organizational failures in deterrence, early warning, defense, and offensive capabilities.
The aftermath of October 7th demands not just tactical adjustments but a fundamental reassessment of strategic paradigms, including the assumption that peace with the Palestinians is attainable.
The Palestinian struggle follows two ideological paths: Islamist-religious and Arab-nationalist, both rejecting Jewish sovereignty. The religious faction sees Zionism as heresy requiring elimination through jihad, while the nationalist faction, with international backing, frames Zionism as a colonial project to be dismantled through diplomacy and violence.
Fatah represents the nationalist path, recognized as legitimate, while Hamas follows the Islamist path, deemed illegitimate in the West. Despite their differences, both share territorial ambitions of reconquest. Other Palestinian factions, such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Islamic Jihad, align with this ideological framework, constructing Palestinian identity through opposition to Zionism.
This follows a Hegelian dialectic, where conflict drives identity formation, and Palestinian nationalism defines itself by rejecting Zionism. Islamist doctrines further assert exclusive Palestinian sovereignty over the land from the river to the sea.
While difficult to accept, Palestinian anti-Zionism resembles other ideologies that predicate identity on negation, such as National Socialism. Unlike Nazi Germany, where Jewish existence was not essential to German identity, Palestinian nationalism depends on Zionism as an adversarial force that must be eradicated. This reliance on negation limits its potential for moderation, in contrast to Arab states, which can engage in peace due to identities independent of Israel’s destruction.
Palestinian movements have long aligned with global jihadist organizations, Marxist liberation theories, and regimes built on Hegelian revolutionary paradigms, such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. These alliances underscore Palestinian leadership’s adaptability in pursuing an agenda of total adversarial negation.
The Strategy of Annihilation
Understanding that Palestinian engagement with Zionism is a strategic phase in a broader eliminationist agenda is key. This aligns with the "Hudaybiyyah doctrine," a historical precedent legitimizing deception in negotiations. Thus, the idea of mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestinians is largely a Western construct detached from Palestinian political reality.
Before the Oslo Accords, skepticism about Palestinian intentions was widespread in Israel but dismissed as reactionary. However, military and political figures warned that recognizing Palestinian claims meant legitimizing an entity fundamentally opposed to peace. The persistence of the Palestinian National Charter’s phased strategy, despite diplomatic agreements, supports this argument.
Critics contended that diplomacy merely improved the Palestinians' strategic position in their continued campaign against Israel. Even "moderate" factions like Fatah play a crucial role by keeping Israel engaged in negotiations while violent factions advance their objectives. Continued diplomatic engagement without reciprocal Palestinian recognition of Israel’s legitimacy reinforces the dialectic of negation rather than fostering reconciliation.
Despite overwhelming evidence, Israel continues treating the conflict as a political dispute rather than an existential struggle, mirroring its failure to heed intelligence warnings before October 7th.
This conceptual inertia dates back to the post-Yom Kippur War period. The 1973 Arab League Summit in Algiers advocated for a political resolution to the Palestinian issue, and the 1974 Rabat Summit designated the PLO as the Palestinians' sole representative. These decisions, embraced by global powers under Saudi oil pressure, shaped international recognition of Palestinian nationalism.
Just days after Algiers, Israel’s Labor Party acknowledged "Palestinian identity" in its platform, and by mid-1974, the government officially recognized the Palestinian issue. This shift paved the way for the Oslo process in 1993, reinforcing Palestinian claims while securing no reciprocal legitimacy for Israel—a policy failure that remains uncorrected.
To break free, Israel must redefine the conflict based on Palestinian ideological hostility rather than illusions of diplomacy. Recognizing that both Fatah and Hamas see Israel’s existence as the core problem will enable Israel to counter Palestinian initiatives with clarity and determination.
Such a recalibration will strengthen Israel’s deterrent posture, reduce Palestinian diplomatic leverage, and allow a focus on pressing regional challenges. Only by acknowledging the true nature of the conflict can Israel secure its future while gaining respect in the Arab world.