We are now more than a year and a half into one of the most painful, protracted, and defining wars Israel has ever faced. As President Trump makes final preparations for his upcoming regional visit, a visit that could unlock a ceasefire, a hostage release and pathway forward, Israel finds itself alarmingly sidelined. Prime Minister Netanyahu has been reduced to a spectator, watching from the margins as issues of our national security are being discussed without us.
This is not just a diplomatic slight, it’s a strategic warning. If Israel does not engage proactively and articulate a clear vision for how this war ends, then Trump, or others, will set the terms for us.
The trauma of 7 October still burns in our bones. The images of that day, the barbarity, the cruelty, the collapse of everything we thought we understood about deterrence, demand justice. They demand answers. And yes, they demanded war.
But here we are, deep into a conflict that has devastated Gaza, fractured Israeli society and tested the limits of Israel’s military power.
In the world of conflict resolution, there’s a concept known as a mutual hurting stalemate. It refers to that critical point in a prolonged conflict where both sides come to recognise they are bleeding too much, gaining too little and unlikely to prevail by force alone. It’s not peace. It’s not surrender. It’s exhaustion with a purpose, the ground from which new thinking can emerge. So where are we now?
Gaza lies in ruins. Hostage families are still in agony. And the Israeli public, weary, proud and increasingly anxious, is asking: What comes next?
Here’s my take. We are approaching a mutual hurting stalemate, but we haven’t quite reached it. And yet, that proximity is itself an opportunity, if we’re wise enough to act on it.
Peter Lerner
Let’s be honest: Israel has dealt Hamas a devastating blow. The group’s capacity to govern Gaza has virtually collapsed. Its tunnel networks, the spine of its military infrastructure, are being dismantled shaft by shaft. Thousands of operatives have been killed. Its funding channels are strained, even as it tries to siphon off humanitarian aid for profit.
Among moderate Arab states, Hamas is radioactive.
And yet, Hamas survives. It adapts. It films propaganda with hostages. It tweets. It plays the long game not the strong game. Because Hamas isn’t trying to win in the way most rational actors define victory. It doesn’t seek prosperity, territorial control or public legitimacy. It seeks relevance through violence. It wants to provoke Israel into excess. It wants Gaza to burn, because the ashes become the fuel for its narrative.
This is why Hamas is not yet at a classic hurting stalemate. It thrives on pain, both its own and that of the civilians it hides behind. The more Gaza suffers, the louder it screams, “Look what Israel is doing.” And far too many around the world still fall for the dangerous lie that Hamas and the people of Gaza are indistinguishable.
Now let’s turn the mirror toward ourselves. Is Israel at a hurting stalemate? Almost, but not yet.
Within government, the military, and large parts of the public, there remains a belief that just a bit more pressure, another operation in Rafah, another tunnel destroyed, will break Hamas. That we are one step away from rescuing hostages, killing the remaining leaders and finally bringing closure.
We yearn for an Iwo Jima moment, an image of victory that makes this hell feel worth it. But with each passing week, that belief fades. And each operational success leaves us asking the same haunting question: and then what?
Let me be blunt: this war is unwinnable in the conventional sense. But it is not unshapable
Because without a credible plan for the day after, we are not defeating Hamas, we are replacing it with chaos. Or worse, creating the conditions for its return under a new name, in a deeper tunnel. Here lies the real danger: without a strategic pivot, Israel becomes the unwilling administrator of a humanitarian disaster. We will hold the keys, the checkpoints, and the food convoys. And inevitably our legitimacy will erode. Our alliances will strain.
After 7 October, we had a clear moral narrative. But moral capital is not infinite. And Hamas is counting on us to squander it.
Let me be blunt: this war is unwinnable in the conventional sense. But it is not unshapable. We cannot end Hamas through airstrikes alone. But we can isolate it politically, militarily, regionally and ideologically, if we shift from military muscle to strategic muscle.
That pivot could look like this. An Arab-led transitional authority in Gaza, made up of technocrats, not partisans, backed by Egypt, Jordan, the UAE and supported by international monitors. A phased hostage-for-ceasefire agreement, with firm third-party enforcement and clear red lines: disarmament, no return of Hamas governance, no double games.
What is the real goal? If it’s justice for 7 October, we are on the path. If it’s the return of hostages, we need leverage, not just vengeance
A reconstruction fund tied to measurable demilitarisation benchmarks. Let Gulf money rebuild Gaza, but on terms that serve the people, not their tormentors. An unambiguous message to Palestinians: You can’t vote for jihad and expect prosperity. But if you reject terror, Israel and the region stand ready to help build a real future. And to the West: demand moral consistency. Do not allow radical movements to whitewash Hamas while holding Israel to impossible standards.
This isn’t naïve. This is what Ahmad Fuad Alkhatib, a Palestinian voice of reason, calls radical pragmatism. It’s what you reach for when you’ve exhausted the logic of force, but not the will to lead. Israel has always known how to fight. Now we must show that we know how to think strategically, flexibly, and morally. This is a moment for adult leadership. The kind that sees the trap and doesn’t walk into it. The kind that knows Hamas is already preparing for the next round, and chooses to make sure there won’t be one.
The mutual hurting stalemate isn’t just a warning. It’s an opening. It forces us to confront a question we’ve avoided: What is the real goal? If it’s justice for 7 October, we are on the path. If it’s the return of hostages, we need leverage, not just vengeance. If it’s peace, we need partners. And if it’s a future, we need imagination.
Wars like this don’t end when one side wins. They end when one side changes the game. Let that side be us.
• Lieutenant Colonel (R.) Peter Lerner is the Director General of International Relations of the Histadrut and a lecturer in Strategic Communication in Reichman University. He served for 25 years in the IDF as a spokesperson and a liaison officer to international. X: @LTCPeterLerner
