Given its global reach, the American military divides the world into various “areas of responsibility” each with its own unified command structure. Operations in Africa are thus supervised by the Africa Command (AFCOM), while troops stationed in Europe answer to EUCOM, and so forth. But due to the longstanding Arab hostility toward Israel, it was placed under EUCOM’s area of responsibility while the rest of the Middle East belongs to that of Central Command (CENTCOM). Michael Makovsky and Charles Wald argue that there is no need to maintain this irrational division of labor:

For years, Israel has been working closely with Egypt’s and Jordan’s military and intelligence services against Islamic State, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other common threats. That cooperation accelerated and expanded to other Arab countries as America retreated from the region—tilting toward Iran under President Obama—and Iranian and Turkish aggression filled the ensuing vacuum. The Abraham Accords marks a natural progression for this convergence of interests and rising cooperation.

Moving Israel to CENTCOM’s area of responsibility would enhance U.S.-Israel as well as Israel-Arab coordination on military operations, strategic planning, and early warning and critical-infrastructure protection—including against Iranian nuclear, conventional and terrorism threats. It would also enable the United States and Israel to extend their impressive operational and technical achievements on missile defense to the rest of the Middle East—paramount consideration amid regionwide missile proliferation by Iran and Hizballah. Further, it would enable more direct American and Arab learning from Israel’s hard-won lessons in its ongoing campaign against Iran.

It is true that several U.S. partners in CENTCOM still don’t recognize Israel. However, that was also the case for decades with EUCOM, which formerly included the Middle East and Africa. We understand some of these countries don’t oppose Israel’s inclusion, marking further progress in Israel’s ongoing diplomatic breakthroughs with Arab neighbors.

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.