Israel and the Temporary Defeat: The Battle of Symbolism Before the Battlefield

Since its declaration of independence in 1948, Israel has been keen to build its military narrative around the idea of absolute superiority, creating a mythical image of its army as an invincible force, not only internally to convince its citizens of their safety, but also as a regional deterrent against all those who confront it. In confronting the Palestinians, this sensitivity to any moment of defeat, even if brief, is even more evident. The Israeli military establishment considers any Palestinian success, even temporary, to constitute a threat not only on the battlefield, but also symbolically and psychologically.

In the consciousness of the Israeli military, a symbolic defeat is often more dangerous than a defeat on the battlefield, as it threatens the prestige the state has sought to establish for decades. Any qualitative Palestinian operation, however limited, can be viewed in the media and on the Arab and Palestinian street as a symbolic victory that weakens the army's image and threatens the deterrence upon which Israel builds its strategy in the region. Therefore, the policy of immediate and intense response is pursued, aiming not only to neutralize the battlefield threat, but also to erase any trace of the temporary victory from the public consciousness. This policy has been evident in several recent rounds of escalation. In the 2021 Gaza War, scenes of rocket fire on Tel Aviv undermined Israel's deterrence. A large-scale military response was accompanied by a media campaign emphasizing that the army had regained control and that the bombing was a response to terrorism. In the 2023 Jenin Camp battle, the resistance attempted to impose a prolonged engagement within the camp, but faced swift action from Israeli special forces and tanks to end the battle, despite the human and field costs. This was aimed at preventing any appearance of Palestinians in a position of strength. October 7, 2023, was a turning point, when the resistance seized control of areas within the border for hours, exposing the fragility of Israel's strategies and forcing the government to declare an all-out war, not only to reclaim territory but also to reassert the army's image as invincible. This has not only a field dimension, but also a psychological and political dimension. Israel realizes that any symbolic defeat threatens regional deterrence, encourages other powers to test their capabilities, affects the internal morale of a security-sensitive society, and gives the Palestinians a political and moral boost in international forums. In this context, the current negotiations appear pointless unless Israel first achieves this goal—that is, establishing itself as the victor on the ground and in the public consciousness—because any discussion or agreement will be unviable if the Palestinians appear to have imposed their will, even temporarily. Accordingly, it can be said that Israel is fighting a symbolic defeat before a real one, realizing that modern wars are not just battles of tanks and missiles, but rather battles of images, headlines, and public emotions. Any scene that portrays the Palestinians as the initiator faces a fierce military and media response to maintain the myth of superiority in the minds of Palestinians—a condition Israel sees as essential for any successful negotiations or the restoration of political control.