Whenever there is conflict in the world, the institutions that comprise the “international community”—the EU, the UN, concerned neutral countries—can be counted on to urge the parties to negotiate and to seek peaceful solutions to their differences. Yet this outlook does not apply to the Palestinian Authority (PA), which has steadfastly refused to engage with the recent U.S. peace proposal, or to enter into negotiations with Israel. This refusal cannot in good faith be blamed on the proposal itself, or the current American president, since the PA also declined the Obama administration’s efforts to broker negotiations. Alan Baker comments:

[I]nternational organs such as the United Nations and the European Union, as well as foreign leaders, [have] refrained from criticizing or condemning the Palestinian refusal to cooperate in a plan intended to restore peace negotiations. To the contrary, rather than urging the Palestinian leadership to engage with the peace plan, through their silence they encouraged the Palestinian leadership in its determination to undermine the plan.

[C]oncern by European states, the UN, and international leaders for Middle East peace and for a two-state solution . . . should have driven them to urge the Palestinians to give the plan a chance at the least, and to enter into a bona-fide negotiation. Such obdurate Palestinian refusal and obstruction should logically have been seen to be the central issue undermining the plan’s implementation.

Sadly, but not unexpectedly, one issue has dominated, and continues to dominate, all discussion of the peace plan. This is neither the plan’s substantive content nor the Palestinian refusal to consider it on its merits. Rather it is the possibility that, in light of the Palestinian boycott of the plan, Israel might unilaterally apply its sovereignty to those parts of the West Bank the plan [suggests should] become part of Israel.

The Palestinians cannot have their cake and eat it too. If they reject out-of-hand the Trump peace plan without even considering it and without even expressing a modicum of willingness to negotiate, then they ought not to condemn Israel for considering implementation of parts of the plan. The Palestinian leadership cannot exercise an indefinite right of veto over peace negotiations.

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.