Currently Jerusalem is mulling plans to apply sovereignty to certain areas of the West Bank with negligible Palestinian populations, following parameters set forth in the peace proposal the Trump administration released in January. Moshe Koppel comments on how best to proceed:

There are two purposes in applying Israeli law [to parts of Judea and Samaria]: 1) to regulate and normalize life through unified, modern laws and to allow for long-term planning and 2) to make it clear that Israel is here for eternity. According to the Trump plan, the application of Israeli law entails a construction freeze and the start of a process that could theoretically end with a Palestinian state. The plan is very good for Israel, but two steps must be taken to ensure that the blessing doesn’t turn into a curse.

The first step is for Israel and the U.S. to sign a memorandum of understanding in which Washington will promise to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state until the Palestinians fulfill all eight of the conditions of the [American] plan, which they will most likely never do. It is important to remember that Donald Trump won’t always be president. Agreement on a map brings us closer to a Palestinian state without the conditions being fulfilled if a less friendly president moves into the White House. A signed memorandum might not bind the hands of another president, but American tradition would make it very hard for that president to ignore it.

The second step is to improve the maps attached to the Trump plan. Let’s tell the truth: these maps were drawn up in an almost criminally amateur manner. The current maps annex nearly 100,000 Arabs in the area of Biddu and Beit Lakiya to Israel and cut off entire cities from adjacent roads, as well as other elementary mistakes.

To make the maps viable, there is no need to institute major changes. The conceptual map gives Israel 32.4 percent of Judea and Samaria. Maintaining that same percentage, we could apply Israeli law to all settlements and the Jordan Valley, including the allocation of land for settlements, corridors to connect communities, and major transportation arteries. None of this would require bringing any Arab village inside the new lines.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”