In December, the British journal the New Left Review published a piece by its long-time editor Perry Anderson entitled “House of Zion,” calling for the destruction of Israel. Given the publication’s influence on the Western left, the article amounted to “the Marxist equivalent of a papal edict,” in the words of the editors of Fathom. Michael Walzer notes its author’s sympathy for violence and contempt for those who desire peace:

Whether [Anderson] favors a purely political or also a military fight, violence or non-violence, is unclear. He doesn’t talk about terrorism at all, though he hints at the usual apologetic account of it (“an explosion of frustration and despair”). His last paragraph seems to call for Arab states to threaten war against Israel (once they are in full control of their “strategic emplacements”). But his militancy is non-specific.

What is certain is that he has nothing but contempt for any Palestinian politician who isn’t actively engaged in “resistance.” All those who hope for mutual accommodation between Jews and Palestinians, who are ready to accept a state alongside Israel and to call for the end of the conflict, who are engaged in a common struggle against terrorists and religious fanatics, who are trying to turn the Palestinian Authority into a nascent state—these are the chief villains in Anderson’s story. The sentences about them are one long angry sneer: they are “compliant notables,” “placemen,” “cost-effective surrogates for the IDF,” bloated with “the proceeds of collaboration.” . . . Anderson is superior to all this. He says it’s war, and he wants them to fight.

With the IDF engaged in ground maneuvers in both northern and southern Gaza, and a plan about to go into effect next week that would separate more than 100,000 civilians from Hamas’s control, an end to the war may at last be in sight. Yet there seems to be no agreement within Israel, or without, about what should become of the territory. Efraim Inbar assesses the various proposals, from Donald Trump’s plan to remove the population entirely, to the Israeli far-right’s desire to settle the Strip with Jews, to the internationally supported proposal to place Gaza under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA)—and exposes the fatal flaws of each. He therefore tries to reframe the problem:

[M]any Arab states have failed to establish a monopoly on the use of force within their borders. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Sudan all suffer from civil wars or armed militias that do not obey the central government.

Perhaps Israel needs to get used to the idea that in the absence of an entity willing to take Gaza under its wing, chaos will prevail there. This is less terrible than people may think. Chaos would allow Israel to establish buffer zones along the Gaza border without interference. Any entity controlling Gaza would oppose such measures and would resist necessary Israeli measures to reduce terrorism. Chaos may also encourage emigration.

Israel is doomed to live with bad neighbors for the foreseeable future. There is no way to ensure zero terrorism. Israel should avoid adopting a policy of containment and should constantly “mow the grass” to minimize the chances of a major threat emerging across the border. Periodic conflicts may be necessary. If the Jews want a state in their homeland, they need to internalize that Israel will have to live by the sword for many more years.