Territorial loss is a visceral and permanent marker of defeat, whereas military setbacks are often framed as temporary “calamities” that can be recovered from.
By Hezy Laing
Military analysts note that for Islamic extremists like Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah, victory is often defined by mere survival rather than traditional military metrics.
Despite suffering devastating strikes, heavy leadership losses, and shattered infrastructure, these actors leverage a “resistance” narrative where simply remaining alive constitutes a strategic win.
These groups frame high casualties as “martyrdom” and economic ruin as a necessary sacrifice for “standing up” to the West.
Consequently, while military powers like Israel or the U.S. may achieve tactical superiority, they struggle to achieve a “definitive defeat” in a region where survival is celebrated as “divine victory”. Therefore a resumption of hostilities is only a matter of time.
Therefore there is now a growing group of Middle East experts expressing the understanding that Arab nations or groups perceive the loss of land as the only form of “real defeat”.
In the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, land is often viewed as the ultimate measure of victory or defeat because it represents tangible sovereignty, identity, and “honor” (sharaf).
While military losses might be dismissed as temporary setbacks or attributed to external interference, the permanent loss of territory is seen as a lasting national trauma.
Dr. Mordechai Kedar (Middle East Scholar & Former IDF Intelligence): A prominent lecturer at Bar-Ilan University, Kedar has frequently analyzed regional conflict through the lens of “tribal honor” and “territorial integrity.”
“In Middle Eastern culture, land is synonymous with honor, and while military casualties can be framed as “martyrdom” (victory in death), the permanent loss of land is an irreversible humiliation and the only signal that a war has been definitively lost.
Kedar notes that Israel already holds significant parts of the Gaza Strip, but believes that this control must be anchored officially and clearly, so that it will have long-term political and security significance.
He says the October 7th massacre must lead to a change of perception, within the framework of which the meaning of losing the campaign. He argues that the loss of territorial control by the enemy is the clearest message that can be conveyed, and that only in this way can the price of the conflict be illustrated.
Kedar adds that such a move, which also includes civilian settlement in the area, could serve as a deterrent and make it clear that terrorist actions have irreversible consequences.
According to him, this concept is intended to create a broader understanding of the balance of power, both in the local and regional arenas.
Without this type of change, it is difficult to present a clear victory, and the campaign could be perceived as another round without a clear decision.
Yaakov Amidror (Former Major General & National Security Advisor): Amidror has often posited that purely kinetic military operations (killing enemy combatants) do not yield “victory” in the Arab world.
He maintains that for a defeat to be “etched into the consciousness” of adversaries like Hamas or Hezbollah, it must be accompanied by the seizure of land, as territorial expansion is the historical metric of success—and its loss the only undeniable sign of failure—in regional geopolitical thought
Prof. Daniel Pipes (President of the Middle East Forum): A prominent scholar on Middle Eastern affairs, Pipes has argued in various analyses that for “victory” to be achieved against radical Islamist or Arab nationalist groups, they must be forced to accept their failure.
He has frequently noted that in the regional context, territorial loss is a visceral and permanent marker of defeat, whereas military setbacks are often framed as temporary “calamities” that can be recovered from as long as the land—or the survival of the movement—remains.
Avi Dichter (Israeli Minister & Former Shin Bet Director): In October 2023, Dichter, then serving as Agriculture Minister, stated that Gaza must be made smaller by the end of the conflict because “losing land is the price Arabs understand”.
This reflects a strategic belief that territorial reduction is a more significant deterrent than military casualties or infrastructure damage.
