With the failure in 1954 of French Indochina and its colonial control of the area, Vietnam became independent and redefined. Communists had been making trouble for the French under their rule. A communist group took control of North Vietnam, and the United States aided South Vietnam maintain its freedom from communism for example by sending military advisors there.
Over the years, the trouble between North Vietnam and South Vietnam escalated such that in 1964 the number of military advisors was dramatically increased. Eventually thousands of troops from the United States fought communist invaders and there was "carpet bombing" of the North. With North Vietnam supplied by the major communist countries and South Vietnam supplied by major free world countries there was every appearance of all out war, such as many had hoped nuclear weapons had made unlikely.
To quite many people the struggle seemed pointless, neither side was making progress. The toll of death and destruction was very high on both sides, and the supplies kept coming. It appeared that there could be no end.
There had always been people in this country who opposed the involvement of the United States in Vietnam, but the growing realization that there could never be any progress was probably what closed their case at last. The United States withdrew "unilaterally" (one side) from Vietnam, that is, without an enforced requirement that the military of North Vietnam "bilaterally" (both sides) withdraw as well.
Although the violence between Israel and its neighbors very much tends to be confined to the rather small border area, there are many players in the world who might supply both sides much like both sides in Vietnam were supplied. Instead of communism versus free markets, it might develop that countries friendlier to Judaism supply Israel and countries friendlier to Islam supply its opponents. That could mean the perpetual, useless loss of lives and supplies that developed in Vietnam. So far, the Islamic world has not been as forcefully and financially in support of the activities of small groups like Hamas, as was the case in Vietnam. Some people suspect them of subterfuge, but at least they are not openly marching into Israel. If that holds true and the supply of combative enemies remains very limited, it might appear that violence can very soon solve the problem for Israel once and for all. That is of course providing it doesn't make the problem worse as is often the case with violence. It behooves Israel to avoid as much as possible appearing to be another Vietnam, appearing to have no solution other than perpetual destruction and loss of lives to utterly no avail.
It behooves Israel to employ more modern methods of obtaining a place in the world such as good conduct and diplomacy. Notice Taiwan. What, if anything, is keeping Taiwan safe from invasion by communists? The United States left Vietnam. Why should China fear the United States holding on very long for Taiwan? Is the United States going to attack in Vietnam again? The answer is that the world has changed. Force is no longer as effective an argument as it once was. Part of the reason it is less effective is that the United States did leave Vietnam. So if Taiwan wants to be communist, if that is the better idea, it can become communist without force, by simply deciding to become more communist or perhaps even unite with the mainland again. That being the modern way, Communist China would only embarrass itself by using force against Taiwan. It would only prove that communism is undesirable. The analogy is not perfect. There are significant differences between Taiwan and Israel, one being the wide ocean. Nevertheless it can make sense for Islam to accept the presence of Israel, and for Israel to accept that the region is mostly Arabic. If Israel is driven out of the Middle East that would significantly diminish tourism, which is a major part of the economy there. As is usually the case, ending war has very significant advantages for both sides.
Have you finally decided to work smarter not deadlier? It can be important to stop trying to characterize your opponents by the worst examples of them you can find. If you look hard enough you can probably find murders who claim to represent one side or the other. They probably do not. They might even have documents. Don't be fooled, there are a lot of "documents" in the United States no one is paying any attention. There is a senator from New York who has lately been adamant to characterize large numbers of people by a few obvious murderers. When the kids in school are taught how to argue effectively they might be taught that characterizing your opponents by the worst examples you can find is called the "(put her name here)" error. I will not give her name here, that would be cruel. She might grow out of it.
A major problem today is that the people who are trying to "define" religion have never read any scriptures. The people of the God of Abraham wanted a "king" (state), but God recommended against the idea, citing the serious problems it involved. The people wanted a king anyway, God relented, and they got one, but with all the disadvantages they were warned would happen. Throughout their history they were never captured because their military was too weak, they were captured because they did not live right, because they sinned.