Last week, an Emirati newspaper reported on what it claimed is a leaked State Department memo outlining a proposal for how Washington should approach the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The memo—which is a proposal, not a formal statement of policy—contends that the Biden administration should return to pressing for a two-state solution, and that it should pursue a “reset” of its relations with the Palestinian Authority (PA). The latter would entail renewing financial support and patching up differences that emerged during the Trump administration. Elliott Abrams questions the wisdom of this argument:

As of this date, Palestinian legislative elections are scheduled for May 22, and presidential elections for July 31. Because no elections have been held since 2006, it is quite possible that these elections too will be postponed. That uncertainty as to whether there will be elections, and who will win them if they are held, suggests that this “reset” is a bit premature. “Resetting the U.S. relationship with the Palestinian . . . leadership” will be extremely difficult if that leadership includes Hamas, as it well may. Indeed, in talks in Cairo in the past week, Fatah and Hamas have discussed a joint electoral list—a maneuver that would guarantee a Hamas role in the PA government, as well as deny the Palestinian people a meaningful electoral contest.

The memo does not address, as far as I am aware, the huge gap between the Palestinian people and the corrupt and increasingly repressive “leadership” of the PA, PLO, and Hamas, but getting along better with that leadership than the Trump administration did does not necessarily benefit the Palestinian people—nor will they necessarily like it. [Indeed], logic might suggest that we hold off on this “reset” . . . unless and until we can get the PA to end its increasingly thuggish behavior.

The memo argues for “rolling back certain steps by the prior administration that bring into question our commitment or pose real barriers to a two-state solution, such as country-of-origin labelling.” It is plain silly to think that such product labelling is actually a barrier to a two-state solution. What’s more striking is that on this subject there is no new thinking. There is simply a return to position papers from the Obama administration, and to the very old tradition of seeking smooth relations with the PA leadership no matter how bad its treatment of its own people.

Tamir Hayman analyzes the latest reports about an offer by Hamas to release three female soldiers in exchange for 150 captured terrorists, of whom 90 have received life sentences; then, if that exchange happens successfully, a second stage of the deal will begin.

If this does happen, Israel will release all the serious prisoners who had been sentenced to life and who are associated with Hamas, which will leave Israel without any bargaining chips for the second stage. In practice, Israel will release everyone who is important to Hamas without getting back all the hostages. In this situation, it’s evident that Israel will approach the second stage of the negotiations in the most unfavorable way possible. Hamas will achieve all its demands in the first stage, except for a commitment from Israel to end the war completely.

How does this relate to the fighting in Rafah? Hayman explains:

In the absence of an agreement or compromise by Hamas, it is detrimental for Israel to continue the static situation we were in. It is positive that new energy has entered the campaign. . . . The [capture of the] border of the Gaza Strip and the Rafah crossing are extremely important achievements, while the ongoing dismantling of the battalions is of secondary importance.

That being said, Hayman is critical of the approach to negotiations taken so far:

Gradual hostage trades don’t work. We must adopt a different concept of a single deal in which Israel offers a complete cessation of the war in exchange for all the hostages.