Hamas must go, but an eventual two-state solution is in America’s interest
Tom Rogan
A two-state solution should remain the ultimate goal of U.S. policy in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Don’t misunderstand me. It should be obvious that Hamas is the key obstacle to a sustainable Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The terrorist group’s very raison d’etre is prohibitive to that process. While Israel and Hamas can make short-term deals as with the present hostage-prisoner transfers, Hamas’s existential focus on Israel’s destruction makes longer-term peace negotiations impossible. As with the Oct. 7 atrocities, Hamas will keep attacking where it senses the opportunity to do so. Hamas believes it is on a mission from God to secure the entirety of Israel under Islamic law. Israel must thus weaken Hamas to such a degree that it is politically and militarily impotent. It is for this reason that the peace process is ultimately served by Hamas’s dislocation from power. That said, an eventual two-state solution remains in America’s interest.
Some on the American and Israeli right vehemently disagree. Israeli-American columnist Caroline Glick asks, for example, what possible reason the U.S. would have to seek a Palestinian state. She suggests that the centering of such a state would be dedicated toward Israel’s destruction because many Palestinians share sympathy for Hamas.
UK GOVERNMENT WAVES SILLY STICKS AT GREECE AND ARGENTINA AND CARROTS AT CHINA
I’d answer that question differently. The reason that successive U.S. administrations including the Trump administration have sought a two-state solution is that they believe, credibly in my view, that this is the only way to permanently resolve the conflict. After all, what are the alternatives?
A permanent Israeli military occupation of Gaza might produce some security, but it would only fuel Palestinian grievances and terrorist recruitment. An Arab-led international governing authority might suffice in an interim postwar fashion, but no governments have suggested openness to this arrangement. Some variation of the Palestinian Authority could govern postwar Gaza. Still, the PA’s geriatric leadership and endemic corruption would surely alienate many Palestinians. These solutions wouldn’t fulfill Palestinian aspirations for statehood nor the Israeli need for security.
As long as Palestinians lack improved economic prospects and the dignity of statehood, too many will turn to Islamist ideologues to explain their misfortune and misdirect it toward terrorism. This doesn’t make that choice right, but it is the reality. And this reality bears key relevance to U.S. national security interests. Ask any serious U.S. counterterrorism analyst whether the Israeli-Palestinian conflict helps drive terrorism against the U.S. and you’ll receive an affirmative answer. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the key source of Islamist terrorism, but it plays a significant propaganda and recruiting role for many different Islamist terrorist groups and individual extremists. It also complicates America’s relationship with critical allies such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan. A durable, peaceful resolution to this conflict is thus directly in America’s security interest.
The challenge of actually getting to a two-state solution is an altogether different problem. The failure of Palestinian leaders Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas to accept respective Israeli peace proposals from Ehud Barak in 2000 and Ehud Olmert in 2008 has soured Israeli confidence that Palestinian leaders even want serious peace negotiations. Israelis also draw a line from Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005 to the Oct. 7 atrocities.
Still, I believe U.S. interests and those of Israel and the Palestinians are best served by an American focus on eventual negotiations similar to those of 2000 and 2008. Of course, such a deal won’t be possible until a Palestinian leadership emerges that has both the respect for Israeli security concerns and the domestic credibility to make concessions. But that shouldn’t mean giving up on that prospect.