Noting the “absurdity” of America’s current policy, Robert Satloff calls on Donald Trump to make good on his campaign promise to relocate the American embassy to Israel’s capital, urges that he announce his intention to do so quickly, and provides detailed advice on how the plan should be executed:

Presidents of both parties who made and then broke [their] promise [to move the embassy] were evidently convinced that [doing so] would ignite such outrage in Arab and Muslim-majority countries and trigger such violence among Palestinians themselves that the costs outweighed the benefits. Opponents of the embassy move have always cited this argument as though it were a self-evident truth. This analysis, however, takes ominous warnings by certain Middle East leaders at face value, builds on what is essentially a condescending view of Arabs and Muslims that assumes they will react mindlessly to incendiary calls to violence, and does not reflect a net assessment that includes the potential impact of subtle, creative, and at times forceful American diplomacy.

Both the residence and embassy should be in west Jerusalem, that part of the city Israel has controlled since 1948–49, to underscore that this move repairs a historic injustice dating to Israel’s founding: that the United States has never formally recognized any part of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. . . .

[But] any assessment of the move . . . needs to place appropriate value not just on repairing a historic injustice but on the powerful signal broadcast to the Middle East—and the wider world—that the new administration is determined to chart a new course in the region, one in which fulfilling commitments to allies is a top priority. . . .

[It will be] useful for the Trump team to point out [to the leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Jordan] that the embassy move reflects something that all these countries should appreciate—a reaffirmation of America’s commitment to allies and its willingness to take bold steps to give meaning to those alliances. More generally, to the extent U.S. envoys can signal a renewed commitment to broader U.S. leadership in the region, the more likely it is that Arab leaders will be willing to use means at their disposal to rein in obstreperous elements in their societies eager to stoke popular outrage at the embassy move.

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.