While Theodor Herzl thought that by bringing Western technology and economic development to an impoverished corner of the Ottoman empire, a Jewish state could easily win over the Palestinian Arab population, his admirer Vladimir Jabotinsky was much more skeptical. Jabotinsky, writing nearly a century ago, understood that many Arabs would be unwilling to sacrifice what they saw as their own national pride for promises of prosperity. In a recent interview with a Qatari television program, Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas politburo, made this point brutally clear, as the translators of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) explain:

Haniyeh . . . said in a July 26, 2020 interview . . . that Israel has previously agreed to the establishment of an airport and seaport in the Gaza Strip in exchange for ceasefire, but that the Palestinian Authority (PA) and other Arab parties have blocked this from taking place under the pretext that it would constitute a separation between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. He said that under such an arrangement, Gaza would become like Singapore, [and] then claimed that a certain Arab country has offered as much as $15 billion for ports and economic projects in Gaza.

Haniyeh summed up his response to this offer, and the ensuing conversation, thus:

“We said to [this Arab country’s representatives], ‘That’s great. We want an airport and a seaport, and we want to break the siege on the Gaza Strip. This is a Palestinian demand, but what are we supposed to give in return?’ Of course, . . . they want us to disband the military wings of [Hamas and other terrorist groups], and incorporate them into the [PA] police force.’

“Naturally, we completely rejected that offer. . . . We cannot, in exchange for money or projects, give up Palestine and our weapons. We will not give up the resistance, Jerusalem, our people in the West Bank, or our right of return to the land of Palestine. So we did not go along with those plans.”

With the IDF engaged in ground maneuvers in both northern and southern Gaza, and a plan about to go into effect next week that would separate more than 100,000 civilians from Hamas’s control, an end to the war may at last be in sight. Yet there seems to be no agreement within Israel, or without, about what should become of the territory. Efraim Inbar assesses the various proposals, from Donald Trump’s plan to remove the population entirely, to the Israeli far-right’s desire to settle the Strip with Jews, to the internationally supported proposal to place Gaza under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA)—and exposes the fatal flaws of each. He therefore tries to reframe the problem:

[M]any Arab states have failed to establish a monopoly on the use of force within their borders. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Sudan all suffer from civil wars or armed militias that do not obey the central government.

Perhaps Israel needs to get used to the idea that in the absence of an entity willing to take Gaza under its wing, chaos will prevail there. This is less terrible than people may think. Chaos would allow Israel to establish buffer zones along the Gaza border without interference. Any entity controlling Gaza would oppose such measures and would resist necessary Israeli measures to reduce terrorism. Chaos may also encourage emigration.

Israel is doomed to live with bad neighbors for the foreseeable future. There is no way to ensure zero terrorism. Israel should avoid adopting a policy of containment and should constantly “mow the grass” to minimize the chances of a major threat emerging across the border. Periodic conflicts may be necessary. If the Jews want a state in their homeland, they need to internalize that Israel will have to live by the sword for many more years.