The Occupation of Territory in War: A Diplomatic and Strategic Achievement for Israel

Third, after a long period of “wars of choice” in which Israel was the strong side, we have returned to the era of “wars of no choice” in which the occupation of territory has both internal and external legitimacy. [...] Until the 1980s, the occupation of territory and transfer of the war into enemy territory for the purpose of removing the threat of invasion into Israel were central components in the IDF's perception of warfare. [...] The transition of enemy behavior to a pattern of stand-off bombardment of Israeli territory, and the development of an Israeli response of counter-fire and active defense implemented in limited "rounds" in Gaza, almost completely removed the occupation of territory from Israeli military and public discourse. [...] This was the case with Egypt and Syria in the agreements on the separation of forces at the end of the Yom Kippur War, and later in the framework of the peace agreement with Egypt, which insisted on the complete return of Sinai. [...] The second reason is at the operational level: The occupation of territory gives the IDF a clear asymmetrical advantage.