|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Order Jamie Glazov’s new book, ‘United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny, Terror, and Hamas’: HERE.
“The Romans never allowed a trouble spot to remain simply to avoid going to war over it, because they knew that wars do not go away; they are only postponed to the advantage of others.”
— Niccolò Machiavelli
Five centuries ago, the Florentine political thinker Niccolò Machiavelli observed something fundamental about power and conflict. In his reflections on Roman strategy in Discourses on Livy, he noted that the Roman Republic refused to ignore emerging threats merely to avoid immediate confrontation. The Romans understood that problems left unresolved do not disappear; they simply return under circumstances more favorable to the enemy.
The insight remains strikingly relevant today. Modern debates over territorial concessions—particularly in volatile regions such as the Middle East—often rest on the assumption that relinquishing strategic ground will reduce tensions and create space for diplomacy. Yet history repeatedly suggests the opposite: when territory is surrendered before lasting security arrangements are proven, conflict is not eliminated. It is postponed.
At the heart of the issue lies a simple strategic truth: territory is not merely land. It is leverage. Throughout history, control of territory has determined whether states dictate events or react to them. Strategic ground shapes military positioning, political negotiations, and the psychological balance between adversaries. Once relinquished, that leverage is rarely regained without significant cost.
This is not merely the observation of Renaissance political theory. Modern strategists have echoed the same principle. In The 33 Strategies of War, author Robert Greene argues that position determines initiative in conflict. The side that holds advantageous ground controls the tempo of events, forcing its opponent to react rather than dictate terms. When strategic position is surrendered prematurely, the balance of initiative shifts. The history of the modern Middle East offers several examples of this dynamic.
In 2000, Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon after nearly two decades of maintaining a security zone designed to buffer its northern communities from attacks. The withdrawal was widely interpreted at the time as a step toward de-escalation. Instead, the vacuum created by the retreat allowed Hezbollah to consolidate its position along the border, significantly expanding its military capabilities over the following years. What was intended as a step toward stability ultimately produced a new and more dangerous strategic reality.
A similar logic appeared in the 2005 disengagement from Gaza. Israel dismantled settlements and withdrew its military presence from the territory in the hope that removing the occupation issue would reduce tensions and open the door to new political arrangements. Instead, the withdrawal created an environment in which Hamas rapidly established control and transformed Gaza into a heavily militarized enclave.
Over the past half-century, Israel has repeatedly found itself trapped in a cycle of victory followed by concession. Territory captured at considerable cost in war is returned in exchange for diplomatic assurances that later prove fragile or unenforceable. When hostilities inevitably resume, Israel must once again commit blood and treasure to retake ground it had previously secured. The pattern has repeated itself often enough that it can no longer be dismissed as an accident of circumstance. It reflects a deeper strategic dilemma: concessions made before lasting security conditions exist often recreate the very dangers they were intended to eliminate.
The pattern has become so familiar that it increasingly resembles what the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once called “eternal recurrence”—a cycle repeating itself endlessly because its underlying lesson has not been learned. Even now, Israel finds itself preparing once again to enter southern Lebanon to confront the same forces it fought only a year ago. Territory that had been secured through military effort was relinquished in the hope that diplomatic arrangements would restrain Hezbollah. Instead, the same strategic dilemma has returned almost immediately. What was presented as a step toward stability has instead produced another round in a conflict that seems condemned to repeat itself.
These outcomes do not necessarily mean that territorial concessions can never contribute to peace. But they illustrate a crucial point: diplomacy cannot substitute for durable security conditions. Agreements written on paper may promise stability, yet strategic realities on the ground often determine whether those promises hold.
This is precisely the dilemma Machiavelli identified when examining Roman expansion. Rome did not assume that potential adversaries would abandon their ambitions simply because diplomacy suggested they should. Instead, Roman leaders believed that maintaining strategic leverage was essential to preventing future conflict. From Machiavelli’s perspective, weakness invited pressure. Concessions made prematurely—before the balance of power had decisively shifted—encouraged adversaries to regroup and resume the contest under more favorable conditions.
Modern strategists have reached similar conclusions. In The 33 Strategies of War, Robert Greene argues that position is one of the most decisive elements in conflict. The side that holds advantageous ground controls the tempo of events, forcing its opponent to react rather than dictate terms. Strategic territory therefore functions not merely as geography but as leverage. When such leverage is surrendered prematurely, the initiative passes to the adversary, who can regroup, rearm, and eventually challenge the balance again. Greene’s synthesis of historical military campaigns emphasizes that the most successful commanders maintain positional advantage as long as possible. Position is power because it shapes the environment in which negotiations occur.
When a state retains strategic ground, it negotiates from strength. When that ground is surrendered prematurely, the negotiation itself changes character. What might have been leverage becomes a concession already granted. The concept applies far beyond any single conflict. From the Cold War to regional disputes across the globe, successful diplomacy has often depended on the maintenance of credible deterrence. Strategic leverage does not eliminate the need for negotiation; rather, it makes negotiation meaningful.
This lesson is particularly relevant in regions where conflicts are deeply embedded and long-standing. Agreements reached under conditions of temporary political optimism can quickly erode if the underlying balance of power shifts. When that happens, previously surrendered ground becomes difficult—if not impossible—to reclaim without renewed confrontation. In this sense, the debate over territorial concessions is not simply about geography. It is about timing and incentives.
If concessions are granted before adversaries demonstrate durable compliance with agreements, the incentive to honor those agreements may weaken. Conversely, when strategic leverage is maintained until commitments are clearly upheld, the incentives shift in favor of stability. This was the logic behind many of the Roman decisions Machiavelli admired. The Romans did not rush to resolve conflicts through concessions. Instead, they sought to shape the strategic environment so that peace, when it arrived, rested on durable foundations.
Modern statesmen face a far more complex world than the Roman Republic ever knew. Yet the underlying dynamics of power have changed remarkably little. Nations still negotiate, compete, and deter one another in ways that reflect the realities of strategic position. The lesson Machiavelli drew from Roman history therefore remains instructive. Wars postponed through concessions are not necessarily wars avoided. They are often conflicts deferred until conditions favor the adversary.
Territory, once relinquished, rarely returns without cost. Strategic ground surrendered today may have to be reclaimed tomorrow under far less favorable circumstances. The challenge for policymakers is not simply to pursue peace but to ensure that the conditions for peace are durable. Diplomacy without leverage may produce temporary calm, but history suggests that lasting stability usually rests on a balance of power that adversaries cannot easily overturn.
Machiavelli’s warning was not a call for endless war. It was a recognition that avoiding conflict by surrendering strategic advantage rarely produces the result its advocates hope for. More often, it shifts the timing of the confrontation while strengthening the position of the opponent. The tragedy is not simply that territory is surrendered, but that the same ground must later be reconquered at the cost of new lives to correct the consequences of earlier concessions.
Five hundred years later, the logic remains difficult to ignore. History suggests that wars postponed are rarely wars avoided; they are merely waiting, like Hamlet’s tragedy, for the final act. In war, there are no second chances.
Excellent article. It should be required reading for Western leaders and Israelis in particular. It explains why the West has been generally been failing and why the Israelis can win every battle but are losing the war of survival.
The quality of work of the Puritans that run our foreign policy is quite evident. Lack of intelligence and education always rise to the top. Look at our results from the recent past. Now look at the big wars. The South did not rise again. Neither have Germany and Japan.
“and they created a desert and called it peace” Tacitus. It still works very well today. The rest is an insomnia treatment.
There can be no peace with militant Islam. And no diplomacy. Only submission. Two presidents, Obama and Biden were happily submitting to it. Trump is not, thankfully.
Outstanding article – hope PM Netanyahu ascribes to this! How many times has Israel “turned the other cheek”? TOO MANY!! Gaza should be cleared – of the RUBBLE and the RABBLE! I think there was a proposal to send all the “Palestinians” to other Arab Nations. That would be a good thing – remove them and scatter them so that their ideology simply dies out – hopefully – rather than spread like cancer!
With Iran’s support ending, you’d think the Hezzies would soon run out of money and weapons – destroy what’s left and be done with that threat! If people won’t let YOU live in PEACE than YOU have to do something about it! Israel acts but then Reacts to International pressure to not go “too far”! Those days should be over!
Hey BLS…. You said “Gaza should be cleared – of the RUBBLE and the RABBLE! “….. Guess what? It will be completely destroyed and Jared Kushner’s rebuilding of Gaza will never happen !
Zephania 2:1-7
“Gaza will be abandoned and Ashkelon left in ruins. At midday Ashdod will be emptied and Ekron uprooted. Woe to you who live by the sea, you Kerethite (Gazans) people, the word of the Lord is against you, Canaan, land of the Philistines. He says, “I will destroy you, and none will be left.” The land by the sea (Gaza) will become pastures having wells for shepherds and pens for flocks. that land will belong to the remnant of the people of Judah; (Israel) there they will find pasture. In the evening they will lie down in the houses of Ashkelon. The Lord their God will care for them; he will restore their fortunes”.
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will destroy what is left of Gaza and it will remain desolate, good only for feeding flocks. The Bible says it and I believe it !!
Rev. Roy………..<
so what makes you certain that the timing is meant to apply to us, here, today?
Are you cerain that piece o dirt named in this passage has no had thos events occur in the past, wiping the slate clean, and today the same patch o dirt is doing something else?
i remember reading i Hal Lindsay’s ridiculous book how many Cobra helicopters will invade some certain ptch o dirt somewhere “over there” “as prophesied” in some other text…….. usually John’s revelation. But in reality, “all these things” Jesus predicted did indeed come to pass in the time se He predicted……. persecution, tribulation, abomination in the Temple, mark o the beast, 100 pound hailstones, the escape out o Jerusalem, by the exact route Jesus predicted, one taken, the next remaining behind, the wind changing th course o the river near Babylon so he armies could walk across on dry ground….. yet so many today are “certain” this or that will happen in our livetimes…. when it alxveady DID happen. Things like a 3rd temple, today’s wars, etc.
The Bible has some “dual prophecies”, which are fulfilled more than once, though.
Maybe its both/and. That is the beauty of some biblical prophecy. The prophets were sometimes given a revealing of things immediately just ahead of them in also the far future, just as a telescope compresses the landscape and field of view. Daniel is
Should Islam be Banned?
What kind of a world do we live in where we allow a ‘religion’ to rape, enslave, and murder anyone they deem deserving of such treatment while the world just sits on the sidelines to watch it happen with little or no response.
Soon, with the support of the country’s leaders both the United Kingdom (eight percent Muslim) and France (ten percent Muslim) will be Islamic caliphates with nuclear weapons which will hasten the goal of a worldwide Islamic caliphate.
Many say that Muslim immigrants, legal or otherwise, are moderates that just want to live their lives within the ‘religion of peace’, a claim destroyed by their lack of assimilation and that Islam instructs them to lie to infidels,
The problem is that there are no ‘moderate’ Muslims as evidenced by the fact that if there were Christian terrorists doing what Islamic terrorists are doing then the ‘moderate’ Christians would rise and form an army to eliminate the Christian terrorists, something the ‘moderate’ Muslims refuse to do because there are no ‘moderate’ Muslims.
The only logical action to take is a worldwide ban of Islam unless Islam itself totally disperses the militant form of Islam and all Muslims leave the countries that they refuse to assimilate in.
Islam is haemorrhaging adherents – if we hang in there, in twenty years’ time it will be much less of a threat. The danger, somewhat like the warnings in the article, is that we will make concessions whilst they still appear strong – not only would we regret this, but it may possibly stem some of the traffic out of Islam. There are a number of places – Nigeria, Gaza, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Iran – where Muslims have been becoming Christians as a result of visions of Jesus; 50,000 of Iran’s 75,000 mosques have fallen into disuse (it should be noted that some Muslims choose Judaism, Zoroastrianism or Humanism rather than Christianity), and Dr David Wood has recorded videos on this topic.
Alk, I hope you are correct, but the reality of Islam’s house of war may be moving to more fertile ground (ie. the west) providing them new challenges to the curse of their insatiable predatory war-mentality. Islam is no different than all the other global authoritarian ideologies that have come before it, except that is promises an eternal reward of unlimited pleasures for their males who die in jihad (it will prove a false promise when they land in front of Messiah Jesus having to answer for murders, stealing, raping, killing in the name of God–each will answer for their participation of the 270 million murdered in 1400 years).
This Front Page Magazine article has the outstanding truth of a statement that “history repeatedly suggests the opposite: when territory is surrendered before lasting security arrangements are proven, conflict is not eliminated. It is postponed.”
Furthermore, about land is also reads “Strategic ground shapes military positioning, political negotiations, and the psychological balance between adversaries. Once relinquished, that leverage is rarely regained without significant cost.
The cost is a large as it’s terrible. It’s very terrible. As observed in October 7th 2023 that Hamas invasion of Israel from Gaza the mass murders and kidnapping that the Muslim terrorists of Hamas committed. The necessary Israel Defense Force action in Gaza as a retaliation to those horrendous jihadist attacks on 10/7/23
Though hand join to hand the wicked will not go unpunished
Because punishment delays men’s hearts become fully set on evil
I hope President Trump hammers these truisms home to the Judas idiot we have as a Prime Minister. Judas Starmer is determined to give away Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands and Pay the recipients for having them given to them.
It is a strategic outpost and must be retained by my country, England. But we need a strong leader to ensure that happens, that’s where President Trump comes in; he already has the measure of Judas, so now he needs to increase the pressure on this cretin to behave himself and stop taking orders from the WEF and the EU.
A superb book on this topic is “The War of Return: How Western Indulgence of the Palestinian Dream Has Obstructed the Path to Peace” by Adi Schwartz and Einat Wilf. I urge you to read it.