In Qatar last week, Secretary of State Antony Blinken reiterated his commitment to work with Middle Eastern leaders to establish a “timebound and irreversible path to a Palestinian state.” But who would govern such a state is entirely unclear. The Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas is weak, and Hamas is on the cusp, one hopes, of being destroyed. Still, even if Blinken’s highly unrealistic proposal does not come to fruition, someone will have to administer Gaza after the war ends, and take responsibility for doling out the international aid that will no doubt flow into the Strip to fund its reconstruction. Douglas Feith takes up the question of who this should be:

The United States can help arrange to channel the aid through some kind of body whose governors would include Palestinians committed to conditions set by the donors. The main conditions should be radical but hard to argue against: (1) don’t steal the funds; (2) fund only civilian projects; and (3) don’t promote hatred of Israel or the donor countries. [Donors] need not be content to aim for minor reforms of current institutions.

It would be wasteful (at best) to put reconstruction aid into the hands of the Palestinian Authority or UNRWA, let alone Hamas. The existing political institutions are the problem, not the solution. A random set of Palestinian businesspeople would do a better job than the leaders now in power.

Would the newly empowered Palestinians have legitimacy? Not at first, but no Palestinian leader now has a democratic mandate. The issue is not democracy but effective, relatively humane administration. And once in place, new leaders may garner support if they use the aid to improve their people’s lives, without enriching themselves or provoking war with Israel.

Israel’s goals of freeing the hostages and defeating Hamas (the latter necessary to prevent further hostage taking) are to some extent contradictory, since Yahya Sinwar, the ruler of the Gaza Strip, will only turn over hostages in exchange for concessions. But Jacob Nagel remains convinced that Jerusalem should continue to pursue both goals:

Only consistent military pressure on Hamas can lead to the hostages’ release, either through negotiation or military operation. There’s little chance of reaching a deal with Hamas using current approaches, including the latest Egyptian proposal. Israeli concessions would only encourage further pressure from Hamas.

There is no incentive for Hamas to agree to a deal, especially since it believes it can achieve its full objectives without one. Unfortunately, many contribute to this belief, mainly from outside of Israel, but also from within.

Recent months saw Israel mistakenly refraining from entering Rafah for several reasons. Initially, the main [reason was to try] to negotiate a deal with Hamas. However, as it became clear that Hamas was uninterested, and its only goal was to return to its situation before October 7—where Hamas and its leadership control Gaza, Israeli forces are out, and there are no changes in the borders—the deal didn’t mature.