There is a persistent habit among Western commentators to analyze the Middle East using ideas that sound reasonable in London or Washington, but fall apart the moment they hit the ground elsewhere in the world. Chief among them is the belief that strength is inherently suspicious and material weakness is proof of moral innocence.

In a Western university lecture hall, that premise might pass for high-minded ethics. In the Middle East, it is a death sentence.

The real back-to-school vaccine question isn’t about science — it’s about control

The UN can say it a thousand times — abortion still isn’t international law

From WWII gunners to pass/fail campuses: How America traded grit for fragility

Most nations can lose a war, sign a harsh treaty, hand over land, and carry on. Israel does not have that luxury. Golda Meir captured that fundamental arithmetic decades ago:

“… if Arab armies lay down their arms, the war ends; if Israel lays down its arms, Israel ceases to exist.”

Restraint is not a noble peace offer when your adversary’s stated objective is your complete destruction. It is simply self-sabotage.

Yet foreign observers fall into a predictable psychological trap, driven by a well-documented cognitive bias known as the “underdog effect.” Human psychology naturally defaults to sympathy for whoever appears weaker on paper. When Western onlookers see the Iron Dome, a modern military, and a booming tech economy, they instantly tag Israel as the oppressor. Then they look at militant groups operating out of dirt roads and residential blocks, mistaking a lack of advanced hardware for moral virtue. In........

© Washington Examiner