President Trump has called a permanent agreement between Israel and the Palestinians “the toughest deal of all,” but Tony Badran notes that it might also be “the least relevant,” or at least close to it. It seems that the Trump administration may realize this—as evidenced, inter alia, by its slowness to unveil its peace plan. Badran explains how, following the end of the cold war, conventional wisdom grossly inflated the importance of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and welcomes a shift away from such distorted thinking:

U.S. policymakers convinced themselves that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians was the central dynamic preoccupying and driving the behavior of regional states. Therefore, U.S. policymakers believed, achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians was the strategic priority in the Middle East. It became a self-evident truth that everything depended on resolving this conflict and on giving the Palestinians their own state.

“Linkage,” [as this notion came to be known], made Israeli peace with the Palestinians (and, at other times, with Syria) the key to the advancement of U.S. interests in the region. It grossly inflated the importance not just of the Palestinians but also of the fractured Levant. Moreover, linkage made U.S. policy, as well as increased Israeli cooperation with U.S.-allied Arab states, hostage to the maximalist demands of the most radical elements of the region, namely Iran and the Assad regime, which continued the historical practice of using the Palestinians as instruments to further their regional objectives.

From a somewhat different vantage point, the Obama administration also viewed the Palestinians as a useful instrument in a wider geostrategic play. The Obama administration used the peace process, especially the issue of Israeli settlement building, to pressure Israel as then-President Obama realigned American interests in the Middle East with Iran.

Instead [of such efforts], the path forward for the U.S. is to continue to strengthen Israel’s position as a security pillar in the region while shoring up its Arab allies and fostering closer cooperation between them and the Israelis against Iran. . . . Progress in peace talks with the Palestinians is a matter of far less concern.

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.