With Israel poised to start taking and holding territory inside the Gaza Strip, the question of how to administer postwar Gaza has become more pressing. The Biden administration had been pushing for handing it over to a “reformed” or “revitalized” Palestinian Authority (PA). The PA, however, seems fundamentally resistant to reform. For instance, last year, the PA made a written promise to the EU that it would revise the anti-Semitic and jihadist curriculum in its schools. (Similar promises were made by Yasir Arafat.) A recent study found a “complete absence of such reforms.” Elliott Abrams comments:

Donors to the PA’s educational programs should take a closer look at what they are supporting. PA schools are teaching another generation to hate Jews and Israelis and to become terrorists. And this is against the background of significant textbook reforms in numerous other Arab and Muslim countries.

Likewise, there were reports in February that the PA has taken steps to end its policy of rewarding those who commit acts of terror, and their families, with money and jobs. I was suspicious of the story at the time, and those suspicions have since been borne out:

In March, payments for February were made as usual. I am reminded of a Politico article headlined “U.S. says Palestinians are close to changing ‘pay for slay’ program.” That article was dated March 29, 2024.

The PA may have changed the agency that pays terrorists, or the bank account, but there is zero evidence that the evil practice has been stopped. So as with textbooks, the PA has given new and convincing evidence that it does not seek and will not undertake reform. Those who believe there is now, or soon will be, a “reformed Palestinian Authority” are kidding themselves. The PA today continues to teach and to reward hate and violence. There has been no change of heart.

Yesterday, Israel’s Channel 12 reported that Israeli representatives have been involved in secret talks, brokered by the United Arab Emirates, with their Syrian counterparts about the potential establishment of diplomatic relations between their countries. Even more surprisingly, on Wednesday an Israeli reporter spoke with a senior official from Syria’s information ministry, Ali al-Rifai. The prospect of a member of the Syrian government, or even a private citizen, giving an on-the-record interview to an Israeli journalist was simply unthinkable under the old regime. What’s more, his message was that Damascus seeks peace with other countries in the region, Israel included.

These developments alone should make Israelis sanguine about Donald Trump’s overtures to Syria’s new rulers. Yet the interim president Ahmed al-Sharaa’s jihadist resumé, his connections with Turkey and Qatar, and brutal attacks on minorities by forces aligned with, or part of, his regime remain reasons for skepticism. While recognizing these concerns, Noah Rothman nonetheless makes the case for optimism:

The old Syrian regime was an incubator and exporter of terrorism, as well as an Iranian vassal state. The Assad regime trained, funded, and introduced terrorists into Iraq intent on killing American soldiers. It hosted Iranian terrorist proxies as well as the Russian military and its mercenary cutouts. It was contemptuous of U.S.-backed proscriptions on the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield, necessitating American military intervention—an unavoidable outcome, clearly, given Barack Obama’s desperate efforts to avoid it. It incubated Islamic State as a counterweight against the Western-oriented rebel groups vying to tear that regime down, going so far as to purchase its own oil from the nascent Islamist group.

The Assad regime was an enemy of the United States. The Sharaa regime could yet be a friend to America. . . . Insofar as geopolitics is a zero-sum game, taking Syria off the board for Russia and Iran and adding it to the collection of Western assets would be a triumph. At the very least, it’s worth a shot. Trump deserves credit for taking it.