Backed by Iran and deeply entrenched in Lebanon, Hizballah possesses military capabilities far greater than Hamas’s. Israeli officials have made clear, on and off the record, that they will no longer tolerate the terrorist group’s existence on their northern border. To this end, French and American diplomats have been working on a negotiated solution that involves Hizballah’s withdrawal north of the Litani river, which divides the southernmost tip of Lebanon from the rest of the country. Israel in exchange would cede Har Dov and few other small parcels of land—based on Hizballah’s extremely tenuous claims that these are in fact Lebanese territories. David Wurmser explains why the deal should be a nonstarter:

Hizballah has been in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701—the resolution that terminated the 2006 Second Lebanon War—since its signing. . . . In many ways, the U.S. proposal only asks of Hizballah to implement one part of UNSCR 1701 and completely ignores [the others, along with previous resolutions]. This itself constitutes a major victory for Hizballah. [Moreover], under the plan proposed by the U.S. and France, Hizballah is rewarded—and its resistance validated and continued existence as an armed militia legitimized—by a full Israeli withdrawal in all of the areas in addition to other disputed parcels.

The U.S. and France have also proposed under this agreement that the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) secure the border and the buffer zone south of the Litani River. Indeed, UNSCR 1701 had called for that, but [the LAF] has long been proven to be an entirely dysfunctional fiction as a sovereign force. It cannot in any way cross Hizballah, and to believe it can . . . is simply delusional.

The U.S. and France are pushing for an agreement to avoid escalation on Israel’s northern border which must be understood in effect as part of a larger effort to appease Iran on substance and strategy while giving Israel hollow tactical scraps. It is a deal Israel must refuse.

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.