Rejecting much conventional wisdom about the possibilities of a two-state solution, Gershon Hacohen argues that any discussion of the Jewish state’s security challenges must begin with a discussion of its values:

Ultimately, one can’t discuss how to defend Israel’s existence without first touching on . . . what it is being defended for. We Israelis are not simply here in order to live securely; promises by U.S. presidents that America will always protect us do not impress me. If all I want is security, I might as well bring the entire population to Tel Aviv and build a huge fortress. Alternatively, I could move to Palo Alto, which has a better quality of life and greater opportunities. A U.S. general who told me that “at the end of the day everyone wants the same things—restaurants that are open until midnight and kids that can get safely to school”—deeply misunderstands me, because I can get all of that in New Jersey. . . .

[W]hen discussing security it’s important to emphasize that something beyond pure security exists, which lies in the realm of values and vision. I believe that the essence of Zionism is to live in the land of Israel, the land of our forefathers. We didn’t come here for a Jewish majority or even for sovereignty but rather simply to live in the land.

After analyzing what he sees as nearly insurmountable challenges to defending Israel effectively with a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Hacohen concludes that he counts himself “among those who believe that Israelis have no chance other than to live together with Arabs.”

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.