From war to peacemaking—is it a paradox, an oxymoron, or perhaps even a lost cause?

This past year has been anything but usual. Frankly, it’s been downright outrageous. It began on October 7 with four consecutive months of reserve duty in and out of Gaza. Then just a few months later, another two weeks served in the Golan Heights shortly after welcoming my newborn son to the world. Finally, I’m now finishing a third round that included six weeks of active combat in southern Lebanon.

Doing such an extended period of reserve duty is difficult on family life and personal relationships. On top of that coming home and returning to work on reaching peace and a political settlement to this conflict is more complicated than I expected.

The transition from war-making to peace-making is seemingly more complex and less intuitive, both on a moral level as well as emotional.

However, in actuality, this should be the natural thing that a person should want and yearn for—to rebuild, to permanently end violence, and to build a better and brighter future for ourselves and for the region. Without this, war loses it’s purpose and as a result it’s legitimacy. It becomes war for the sake of destruction and not destruction for the sake of systemic change and restoration.

In Israel we face very real threats from terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. They are not just enemies in the sense that their goal is the destruction of Israel and the elimination of the existence of a Jewish state in the region.

They are adversaries of peace and constitute potential spoilers in any opportunity of achieving a permanent political settlement. In fact, for Hamas and Hezbollah, maintaining a permanent state of war and violence with Israel is their chief strategy. Through military means alone they cannot overcome Israel’s superior technological and military prowess. But instead, sustained levels of violence with Israel creates fertile ground for the country’s deterioration on the international stage as well as in terms of its internal cohesiveness.

Because of this, I have no issue serving with my ideological opponents within Israeli society—the political right and members of the settlement movement. The fact that I don’t agree with them on the desired outcome of the war, or even the way the war should be managed, doesn’t change the fact that in the eyes of Hamas and Hezbollah, we are all settlers, foreign and legitimate targets that need to be forcefully removed from the land.

However, our political leadership is failing us.

Instead of utilizing the conditions that the IDF has set on the ground to negotiate a political settlement that liberates the hostages and seeks to architect a new political reality in cooperation with a broad spectrum of moderate Palestinian and international partners, the military gains that hundreds of soldiers have died for are going to waist as the war draggs out without a serious endgame in sight, perhaps merely for political gain.

Maybe there is no endgame at all?

Admittedly, the key difference between my time in Gaza and Lebanon is that the end goal in Lebanon was clear—reaching an agreement that maximizes Israel’s security interests (possibly coming to fruition within hours). One that allows for Israel’s northern residents to safely return to their homes and provides assurances that enforcement against threats from Hezbollah in the future will be actually be implemented in contrast to UN Resolution 1701 that wasn’t enforced whatsoever.

In contrast, Gaza remains without a clearly defined endgame. Liberating all of the hostages and eliminating Hamas from power as both a military and political force are both necessary and feasible, but a new political reality needs to be instituted for that to be realized. Or, in other words, Hamas has to be replaced as a governing force in order for it to be defeated and eliminated. Unless Israel decides to completely reoccupy Gaza, which won’t actually end violence and terrorism, Hamas will be replaced only as a result of some kind of diplomatic agreement.

Therefore, it appears that regarding Gaza, the Israeli government has continued to decide not decide regarding the political fate of the coastal enclave. This leaves us with a grim future in which we’ll continue to fight and die in the same neighborhoods and areas where we’ve already been time and time again

In light of this situation, it’s clear to me that the battle does not end with my duty as a soldier. I have to continue to fight for systemic change and for peace as a civilian. This is the real “total victory”. The war will only be won if this is the outcome. It’s merely a reflection of what the government is supposed to do—translate military gains into a diplomatic resolution on better terms.

I feel the burden to fight for Israel’s future and protect it from what I perceive is the greatest threat to the future of Zionism and to the right of a Jewish and democratic state to exist in the land—this conflict and the negative effects that it creates for Israel (deligitimization, lack of security, internal division).

Fighting for the country includes fighting its enemies and protecting its security but no less important is the battle for a peaceful future that will bring real security to future generations.

I’m excited to do this in my new role at ECF.