I think that a strong Israel is the only Israel that will bring

"I think that a strong Israel is the only Israel that will bring the Arabs to the peace table." These words, spoken by Benjamin Netanyahu, speak to a profound and often controversial belief in the nature of strength and peace. In this statement, Netanyahu emphasizes a key principle in the philosophy of realpolitik—that true peace often emerges not from weakness or compromise alone, but from the strategic positioning of power. Strength, he argues, is not merely a tool for defense but a means to create the conditions for dialogue and understanding. This is a belief that echoes through history, where nations, empires, and individuals have often found peace only after demonstrating the power to defend and protect their interests.

In the ancient world, strength was often seen as a prerequisite for peace. Pericles, the great Athenian leader, understood this concept well. During the Peloponnesian War, Athens’ military might and strategic alliances allowed it to exert influence over other Greek city-states, establishing a fragile but real peace within its empire. However, Pericles also knew that power alone could not maintain peace forever. The balance between strength and justice was delicate, and the willingness to negotiate was equally essential. Yet, the lesson from Pericles is clear: peace was not achieved by submission or weakness, but by the demonstration of strength—a force that could protect the interests of the powerful while creating an opening for peace. In this way, Netanyahu's words resonate with Pericles' approach: strength can create the conditions for peaceful negotiations.

Similarly, consider the story of the Roman Empire. The Romans, for all their grandeur and sophistication, were never truly at peace unless they were strong enough to enforce it. The Pax Romana, or "Roman Peace," was established not through diplomatic niceties or voluntary cooperation but through the firm hand of military dominance. Emperors like Augustus maintained peace through the display of military might and strategic control. Augustus, through his leadership, demonstrated that peace could only be sustained if those in power were capable of defending their state against internal and external threats. This lesson, though from a different era, speaks directly to Netanyahu’s belief: strength enables peace, creating an environment where negotiations become possible, even inevitable.

Even in modern history, the notion of strength as a prerequisite for peace holds true. The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union is a prime example. The two superpowers were locked in ideological and political conflict for much of the 20th century. However, it was not until both sides demonstrated their formidable military strength—through nuclear deterrence and an arms race—that peace talks were possible. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, for instance, nearly brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, but it was the balance of power and the fear of mutual destruction that forced both sides to the negotiation table. In this case, strength became the catalyst for dialogue, proving that peace is not just a matter of goodwill, but a reflection of the power dynamics that shape international relations.

For Israel, the story of David and Goliath carries a similar weight of significance. In its early years, Israel was a nation surrounded by enemies, a small state with limited resources. Yet, it was Israel’s strength—in both military prowess and strategic alliances—that allowed it to not only survive but to thrive in a region fraught with conflict. The Six-Day War of 1967 is a powerful illustration of this. Despite being outnumbered and facing multiple fronts, Israel's swift and decisive military victory demonstrated its strength to the Arab nations and to the world. In the aftermath of the war, the prospect of peace talks became a reality—not because Israel was weakened or compromised, but because its strength made negotiations an unavoidable choice for those seeking stability in the region.

The lesson we can draw from Netanyahu’s statement is that, while peace is always the ideal, it often requires strength to be achieved. For Israel, the path to lasting peace with its neighbors cannot be one of appeasement or weakness but one where the country’s ability to defend itself and assert its interests is indisputable. This does not mean that peace comes only through military means, but rather that a nation must show that it is capable of standing firm and that its security is non-negotiable. From a broader perspective, strength in this context refers to more than just military might—it also includes the power of resilience, diplomacy, and strategic alliances.

In your own life, think of how strength and peace interact. Whether in your relationships, your career, or your community, is peace achieved through submission and compromise alone, or does it require standing firm in your principles, showing strength when necessary, and then creating the conditions for dialogue and understanding? The balance between strength and peace is delicate, and just as Israel has learned, the path to lasting peace is often forged through the ability to defend oneself and ensure that your needs are respected. True peace, whether between nations or individuals, requires courage, wisdom, and a willingness to assert your boundaries while also remaining open to cooperation and reconciliation.

As we look to the future, let Netanyahu’s words remind us that strength and peace are not opposites but complementary forces. To achieve true and lasting peace, we must first empower ourselves, ensuring that we are capable of standing firm when necessary. But we must also create the space for peaceful resolution, understanding that strength does not mean confrontation, but the ability to engage from a position of stability and self-assurance.