This article critically evaluates the predominant reliance on hard power by the Israeli state in its conflict with the Palestinian population, particularly in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. It analyzes the strategic limitations of military force and intelligence-based approaches, drawing on Joseph Nye’s conceptual framework of hard and soft power. Through historical and contemporary examples, it argues that ideological conflicts such as terrorism and religious extremism cannot be resolved solely through coercion and violence. The article advocates for a balanced integration of soft power strategies, including diplomacy, cultural exchange, and economic collaboration, to address the root causes of extremism and foster sustainable peace. Emphasis is placed on the empowerment of moderate Muslim voices and the importance of counter-narratives that bridge divides rather than exacerbate them. This scholarly discussion combines theoretical insights with practical policy recommendations to propose a more holistic and effective path toward conflict resolution in the Middle East.
Introduction
Since October 7, 2023, Israeli military operations across the Gaza Strip have intensified, resulting in catastrophic humanitarian consequences. Medical sources estimate that hundreds of thousands of civilians have lost their lives due to these attacks (Al Jazeera, 2024). In parallel, incidents such as Israeli forces firing “warning” shots at foreign diplomats visiting the Jenin refugee camp in the occupied West Bank have sparked widespread international condemnation (Human Rights Watch, 2024). Israel continues to obstruct humanitarian aid to Gaza, exacerbating the suffering of the Palestinian people (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs [UNOCHA], 2024). These developments demand a critical reevaluation of Israel’s prevailing military-first strategy and a broader reflection on the effectiveness of hard power in resolving ideological and geopolitical conflicts.
This article explores the limitations of relying solely on hard power tools, such as the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Mossad, in managing complex conflicts. Drawing on theories from Joseph Nye (2008, 2011), Abraham Maslow (1966), and comparative historical ideologies, the discussion emphasizes the need to incorporate soft power approaches, including cultural, political, and economic strategies. Ultimately, this article argues that ideological conflicts, such as those characterizing the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, can only be sustainably addressed through balanced applications of both hard and soft power.
The Dominance of Hard Power in Israel’s Strategy
Israel has historically depended on its superior military strength and intelligence capabilities to secure national interests (Ben-Yehuda, 2017). The IDF and Mossad are often portrayed as symbols of strength and deterrence. However, such reliance reflects what Maslow (1966) described as the “law of the instrument”: if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail (p. 15). In Israel’s case, this hammer is the military, and the nail becomes every form of resistance, protest, or ideological opposition.
Hard power involves coercive strategies, including the use of force, sanctions, and surveillance (Nye, 2011). While effective in certain contexts, such tools are inherently limited in addressing the root causes of ideological extremism. Terrorism, like Nazism or communism, is an ideology—a complex belief system—not a military target (Cohen et al., 2016). Attempting to dismantle such ideologies using bombs and bullets alone risks deepening grievances and perpetuating cycles of violence (Pape, 2005).
The Inadequacy of Military Solutions Against Ideological Threats
The United States-led “war on terror” exemplifies the shortcomings of over-relying on hard power. NATO forces successfully eliminated numerous terrorist operatives, yet the ideologies of Wahhabism, Salafism, and Jihadism persist. This demonstrates a critical lesson: ideologies cannot be destroyed; they must be discredited and replaced (Gerges, 2011).
In the case of Israel, continuous military campaigns and blockades contribute to the perception of a systematic campaign against Palestinians, reinforcing extremist narratives (Said, 1994). These narratives are easily manipulated by groups such as Hamas to justify further violence. Moreover, as Nye (2008) noted, “In the information age, success is not merely the result of whose army wins, but also whose story wins” (p. 5). Israel’s current approach is losing the narrative battle in the eyes of many in the international community (Khalidi, 2020).
The Potential of Soft Power in Conflict Resolution
Soft power, as defined by Nye (2011), is the ability to influence others through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion. Soft power instruments include diplomacy, cultural exchange, economic assistance, and humanitarian outreach. These tools can shape preferences and build long-term alliances grounded in mutual respect and shared values.
In the Israeli-Palestinian context, soft power could involve facilitating Palestinian access to education, healthcare, and infrastructure (Amr, 2013). It could also mean engaging with moderate Palestinian leaders and civil society organizations to promote peace and co-governance. Soft power can transform adversaries into partners, fostering reconciliation over retribution (Keohane & Nye, 1998).
Biblical scripture also echoes this philosophy: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21, New International Version). This ethical guideline, rooted in spiritual tradition, supports the notion that sustainable peace cannot be achieved through violence alone. It must involve goodwill, empathy, and dialogue.
Bridging the Ideological Divide Through Inclusive Diplomacy
Western counterterrorism strategies have often excluded moderate Muslim voices, inadvertently reinforcing extremist claims of a civilizational clash between the West and Islam (Abu-Nimer, 2003). To rectify this, U.S.-led alliances, including Israel, must adopt a more inclusive strategy. Empowering moderate Muslims to take leadership roles in deradicalization efforts can delegitimize extremist ideologies from within.
By training and equipping moderate Islamic leaders with soft power tools—such as educational reform, theological counter-narratives, and media outreach—governments can undercut the appeal of violent extremism (Moghadam, 2008). This approach can reshape the conflict from a “Crusade versus Jihad” framing to a collaborative campaign for peace and dignity.
Moreover, Israel must extend diplomatic overtures to Palestinian authorities and grassroots organizations genuinely committed to nonviolence. Creating joint Israeli-Palestinian governance bodies for humanitarian and development projects could foster mutual trust and shared purpose (Bar-Tal, 2000).
Challenges and Counterarguments
Critics of soft power strategies may argue that such approaches are naive or ineffective in the face of existential threats. Indeed, when faced with immediate danger, military responses are necessary to protect civilians and maintain order (Friedman, 2005). However, the overuse of such responses risks normalizing militarism and sidelining peaceful alternatives.
Another challenge lies in political will. Both Israeli and Palestinian leaderships face internal pressures from hardline constituencies that view compromise as betrayal (Milton-Edwards & Farrell, 2010). Overcoming these barriers requires courageous leadership and sustained international support.
Furthermore, soft power does not yield immediate results. Its impacts are often intangible and long-term, making it a hard sell in politically volatile environments. Nonetheless, its strategic value lies precisely in its sustainability and potential to transform conflict dynamics (Slaughter, 2004).
The Role of the International Community
The global community must play a proactive role in encouraging soft power engagement. International organizations, including the United Nations, can mediate dialogues, monitor human rights conditions, and coordinate humanitarian aid (UNESCO, 2023). Educational and cultural exchange programs between Israel and its neighbors can humanize the “other” and break down stereotypes.
Nations with diplomatic ties to both Israel and Palestine should facilitate backchannel negotiations and confidence-building measures. Additionally, diaspora communities worldwide can contribute by fostering cross-cultural understanding and supporting peace initiatives (Lustick, 2006).
Conclusion
The ongoing violence in Gaza and the West Bank reveals the profound limitations of a hard power-dominated strategy. Israel’s reliance on military and intelligence tools has not quelled dissent or neutralized extremism. Instead, it has exacerbated humanitarian crises and alienated global public opinion.
To build lasting peace and security, Israel—and its international allies—must embrace a more holistic approach. Soft power, grounded in empathy, partnership, and ideological engagement, offers a path forward. It invites Israel to act not merely as a fortress state but as a responsible regional leader committed to justice, dignity, and coexistence.
As Nye (2008) warned, success in the 21st century depends not on the might of armies but on the persuasiveness of narratives. Israel must craft a narrative of peace, inclusivity, and shared humanity if it hopes to win the hearts and minds necessary for true and enduring security.
References
Abu-Nimer, M. (2003). Nonviolence and Peace Building in Islam: Theory and Practice. University Press of Florida.
Al Jazeera. (2024). Gaza: Death toll and humanitarian crisis. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com
Amr, H. (2013). The Need for a New U.S. Strategy in the Middle East. Brookings Institution.
Bar-Tal, D. (2000). From intractable conflict through conflict resolution to reconciliation: Psychological analysis. Political Psychology, 21(2), 351–365.
Ben-Yehuda, H. (2017). Political Assassinations by Jews: A Rhetorical Device for Justice. SUNY Press.
Cohen, R., Tabbara, R., & Zaalouk, M. (2016). Ideology and Violence: A Complex Relationship. Journal of Conflict and Security.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Gerges, F. A. (2011). The Rise and Fall of Al-Qaeda. Oxford University Press.
Human Rights Watch. (2024). Reports on West Bank conflict. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org
Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1998). Power and interdependence in the information age. Foreign Affairs, 77(5), 81–94.
Khalidi, R. (2020). The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance. Metropolitan Books.
Lustick, I. S. (2006). Trapped in the War on Terror. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1966). The Psychology of Science: A Reconnaissance. Harper & Row.
Milton-Edwards, B., & Farrell, S. (2010). Hamas: The Islamic Resistance Movement. Polity.
Moghadam, A. (2008). The Globalization of Martyrdom: Al Qaeda, Salafi Jihad, and the Diffusion of Suicide Attacks. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Nye, J. S. (2008). The Powers to Lead. Oxford University Press.
Nye, J. S. (2011). The Future of Power. PublicAffairs.
Pape, R. A. (2005). Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Random House.
Said, E. W. (1994). The Question of Palestine. Vintage Books.
Slaughter, A. M. (2004). A New World Order. Princeton University Press.
The Holy Bible, New International Version. (1978). Zondervan.
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA). (2024). Gaza Situation Reports. Retrieved from https://www.unocha.org
UNESCO. (2023). Culture of Peace Programs. Retrieved from https://www.unesco.org