The U.S. State Department, along with numerous pundits, academics, and policy experts, has long believed that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a prerequisite to improved relations between Israel and its neighbors, and will also lead to better American relations with the Arab world. While this theory of “linkage” has never been supported by much evidence, and has been entirely discredited in the past six years, Dennis Ross argues that its mirror image could lead, if not to peace, then to progress in that direction:

Benjamin Netanyahu can justify a move toward the Palestinians before his public and government if it is clear he is getting something from [moderate Sunni states], and especially the Saudis, that shows the region is responding to Israel. For Mahmoud Abbas, the Arabs can assume responsibility for the moves he makes. The problem is that the Arabs, in particular the Saudis, are not itching to play this role. . . .

[Thus there is a need for] what might be termed “reverse linkage”: it is not dealing with the Palestinian issue that will draw the Saudis closer to the United States; rather, it is the U.S. showing it will counter the Iranian threat in the region, even as it expects tangible Saudi moves on the peace issue, that can elicit active measures in support of the Trump administration’s efforts. Yes, the Saudis would still need Israeli moves toward the Palestinians to explain their outreach to Israel to their own and other Arab publics, but the [real motivating force] for them would be seeing that the U.S. is serious practically, not only rhetorically, in limiting Iran’s destabilizing moves in the region. . . .

The Saudis could [then] be asked to announce that they will send a delegation to Israel to discuss common threats in the region and security assurances. . . . In return, Israel could announce that because of its commitment to two states for two peoples, it will not build outside the settlement blocs and will forswear sovereignty in the areas that are east of the security barrier—or what amounts to 92 percent of the West Bank.

[Next], the Saudis and others . . . could join the U.S. in pressing [the Palestinian leadership] to stop seeking to delegitimize Israel in international forums; to end preferential welfare payments to the families of those who engage in violence against Israelis; and to recognize that there are two national movements and national identities—Jewish and Palestinian—which is why they accept two states for two peoples.

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.