The Paradoxical Trinity
In Waging War and Negotiating Peace
It felt like an end to the war was inevitable. Bibi and Trump were maneuvering. Negotiators were wrangling. Commentators were predicting that a temporary truce leading to a permanent ceasefire would be reached within weeks, if not days.
But as we have learned over the last year and nine months, and as 19th-century military theorist Carl von Clausewitz argued in his seminal work, About War, nothing in war is inevitable. According to von Clausewitz, war is essentially unpredictable, because it depends upon a “paradoxical trinity” of passion (the people), chance (the army), and reason (the government). Waging war and, by extension, negotiating peace, require more than public consensus and tactical success; they also demand political will.
At the moment, both sides lack the political will to end the war. Hamas has no interest in a ceasefire that would require it to forfeit its only assets, the remaining hostages, and would ultimately spell its demise. The Israeli government is unmoved by a ceasefire that would ensure the release of only half the living hostages, would enable Hamas to continue to function as a military and governing force, and would deny its fanatical fringe the chance to resettle Gaza.
We may idealize the ceasefire negotiations as a process aimed at ending the suffering of Gazans and freeing the hostages, and which pursues every avenue to reach those goals. But the reality is quite different. The negotiations, like the war itself, are driven by Israel’s and Hamas’ political goals and strategies. As von Clausewitz famously wrote, “War is the continuation of policies and politics by other means.” Until those policies have been put in place, and those politics satisfied, von Clausewitz’s trinity will remain paradoxical, and an end to the war unreachable.
Dear Sheri:
Thank you for writing. It is gratifying to know that you appreciate my Substack. I am always happy to discuss it. I enjoy your writing, too.
I meant "unmoved" in the sense of not budging from its position rather than the sense of unfeeling, though I can't say I mind that reading. I think Bibi's (and Sarah's) icy treatment of the hostage families and their visit to Nir Oz only a month or so ago for the first time since Oct. 7 speak to a lack of empathy.
I agree that many people who support the return of Jewish communities to Gaza do so from a a place of deep conviction and out of concern for national security. However, I think those who are actually willing to live there are the most extreme and ideological. I also think those who call for Gaza's resettlement have forgotten that we pulled out of Gaza because our presence there was untenable from a security perspective in the long-term. The same would be true now, unless all the Gazans are forced to leave, which is something I cannot support but I am afraid many in the settlement movement do. I understand the need for a temporary military occupation of Gaza, but I believe long-term settlement would look an awful lot like the West Bank--another untenable situation.
Thanks again for reading and writing. May we soon see an end to the war and enjoy a secure future,
Sheryl
This is an interesting and well-written piece and I’m glad I found it. I do want to share one point of disagreement, centered on a single paragraph:
"The Israeli government is unmoved by a ceasefire that would ensure the release of only half the living hostages, would enable Hamas to continue to function as a military and governing force, and would deny its fanatical fringe the chance to resettle Gaza."
The phrase “is unmoved” caught my eye. I might have chosen “unwilling” instead, though of course, this is your article, not mine. To my ear, “unmoved” risks implying indifference or lack of care, which I do not believe reflects the government’s stance — or Bibi’s — even if I disagree with them at times.
I also share the concern that a ceasefire which leaves Hamas in power and fails to bring home all the living hostages would be a serious mistake.
Where I feel less aligned is with the phrase “fanatical fringe” in reference to those who seek to resettle Gaza. I know it has become common shorthand to describe certain political figures this way, but I think there is room for a broader perspective. Many who support the return of Jewish communities to Gaza do so from a strong, deeply held national conviction and not fanaticism. One could argue, in fact, that Jewish presence is what would bring a measure of long-term security. That is a larger conversation, of course, and not the focus of your piece.
I respect the work you are doing and appreciate your voice.