Recently a group of former government officials, most of whom have held prominent foreign-policy positions, bought advertising space in the New York Times to call for the establishment of a Palestinian state and to set forth some parameters for the peace treaty that would create it. These self-styled “national-security leaders” also urged the U.S. and Israel to respond favorably to Mahmoud Abbas’s recent UN speech calling for an international conference to resolve the Israel–Palestinian conflict. Although their statement claims to follow established U.S. policies, writes Elliott Abrams, it is in fact “radical”:

The statement is radical . . . in embracing the Palestinian view that only Israel is to blame for the failure of peace negotiations. . . . Nowhere does it note that for nine years running, the PLO has refused to come to the table and negotiate. . . . [N]owhere does the statement actually demand that the PLO do the single thing that should be most obvious: agree to get back to the negotiating table. . . .

The statement is [also] radical in holding that the American role over the years is blameworthy. . . . The statement is, [finally], radical in backing fully the Palestinian demand that the traditional American role in fostering negotiations must be usurped by others. . . .

Clearly the signers believe the United States has long been much too pro-Israel. And now the dreaded Trump administration has gone even farther in that direction (for example, one must suppose, by recognizing that Israel’s capital, Jerusalem, is Israel’s capital)—and this is intolerable. Therefore the signers demand that the “International Community” take over. This is not entirely unreasonable in one way: we can surely count on the “International Community” to abandon the support of Israel that has characterized American foreign policy, and to try to force a solution unfavorable to Israel. Israel has 70 years of experience with the “International Community” and it is bitter.

After all, that “International Community” includes 57 Islamic states, the EU, and countries hostile to Israel such as Sweden and Cuba. The statement is, then, is a cry of anguish about the Trump administration’s strong support of Israel and a demand that someone, somewhere, start meeting to take the Palestinian side and pressure Israel for concessions.

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.