As Europe—along with many Middle Eastern countries—faces a massive influx of migrants, many of them fleeing the Syrian and Libyan civil wars, Aryeh B. Bourkoff and Ari R. Hoffman suggest looking to Israel’s extensive and perhaps unique experience in settling refugees within its borders:

Both necessity and ideology have placed welcoming and integrating immigrants at the heart of Israel’s national ethos. . . . Israel, which more than doubled its population in the first decade of its existence and permanently changed its national complexion by admitting Jews from Minsk to Morocco, is a vital example for today’s crisis. . . .

In particular, this record of absorptions suggests that long-term, the key to success is maintaining a two-way street. Refugees had to do difficult things to fit in to Israeli society, changing their occupations, languages, and sometimes even the nature of their families. They often lived in periphery towns, took low-paying jobs, and for a long time lacked a robust political voice. Nevertheless, over time they have contributed to Israel uniquely and irrevocably, from politics to pop culture. Israel, like America, is inconceivable without this diversely peopled mosaic.

Israel’s example illustrates that our approach to the current refugee crisis cannot only be a matter of numbers, quotas, and background checks. We have to consider our basic values. . . . Perhaps the most difficult kind of accounting revolves not around budgets but relates to the almost impossible equipoise between cultures that is likely to ensue from profound demographic change. Both the American and Israeli examples show, however, that there is enormous payoff in the long run for farsighted policy and principles.

Israel’s goals of freeing the hostages and defeating Hamas (the latter necessary to prevent further hostage taking) are to some extent contradictory, since Yahya Sinwar, the ruler of the Gaza Strip, will only turn over hostages in exchange for concessions. But Jacob Nagel remains convinced that Jerusalem should continue to pursue both goals:

Only consistent military pressure on Hamas can lead to the hostages’ release, either through negotiation or military operation. There’s little chance of reaching a deal with Hamas using current approaches, including the latest Egyptian proposal. Israeli concessions would only encourage further pressure from Hamas.

There is no incentive for Hamas to agree to a deal, especially since it believes it can achieve its full objectives without one. Unfortunately, many contribute to this belief, mainly from outside of Israel, but also from within.

Recent months saw Israel mistakenly refraining from entering Rafah for several reasons. Initially, the main [reason was to try] to negotiate a deal with Hamas. However, as it became clear that Hamas was uninterested, and its only goal was to return to its situation before October 7—where Hamas and its leadership control Gaza, Israeli forces are out, and there are no changes in the borders—the deal didn’t mature.