Former Israeli ambassador to the UN Dore Gold speaks about the possibility of renewed negotiations with the Palestinians, Israel’s relations with Arab countries, the Iranian nuclear threat, and the absurdity of the attack on Netanyahu for accepting an invitation to speak to the U.S. Congress. On the subject of borders, Gold comments:

Many people forget that Israel was never required to withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines—which are often misnamed “the 1967 borders.” It was the UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted in the aftermath of the Six-Day War, which stated explicitly that Israel was expected to withdraw from “territories” and not from all the territories. The common understanding of the U.S. and the UK at the time was that there had to be an Israeli withdrawal, but it wouldn’t have to be a full withdrawal. . . . Israel received assurances from successive US administrations that it was entitled to defensible borders that would replace the fragile pre-1967 lines from which it was attacked more than 40 years ago. . . .

Israel has to negotiate a new border with the Palestinians. . . . In the context of negotiating those new borders, Israel will seek ways to assure that, at the end of the day, it will have secure boundaries that are defensible, given the multiple threats mushrooming around Israel at present, from Islamic State to Iran.

If there is to be peace, Palestinians will have to unlearn the hatred of Israel they have imbibed during nearly two decades of Hamas rule. This will be a difficult task, but Cole Aronson argues, drawing on the experiences of World War II, that Israel has already gotten off to a strong start:

The population’s compliance can . . . be won by a new regime that satisfies its immediate material needs, even if that new regime is sponsored by a government until recently at war with the population’s former regime. Axis civilians were made needy through bombing. Peaceful compliance with the Allies became a good alternative to supporting violent resistance to the Allies.

Israel’s current campaign makes a moderate Gaza more likely, not less. Destroying Hamas not only deprives Islamists of the ability to rule—it proves the futility of armed resistance to Israel, a condition for peace. The destruction of buildings not only deprives Hamas of its hideouts. It also gives ordinary Palestinians strong reasons to shun groups planning to replicate Hamas’s behavior.